text:
Guest | September 16, 2013
By Guest • Monday, September 16, 2013 - 22:22
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
How many climate errors in one article?
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, "Dialing back the alarm on climate change", was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe?
First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn't been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn't necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn't tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous.
Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in "no net or ecological damage".
This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science. With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage. Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels.
In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. Around the world we've seen similar impacts. Alternating flooding and heat waves in Europe, China, India, and Australia, to name a few examples. With these impacts being seen already, it makes a real scientist shudder about what will occur when we reach 3.6 degrees of warming.
Where did Matt Ridley get his information? Hard to say because he cited no studies that support his claim.
Mr. Ridley made other irresponsible and unsupported claims – for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesn't pass the smell test. It certainly isn't consolation for regions like Southern Florida, which are severely threatened by rising seas.
The basic facts are clear: humans are causing climate change and there are already economic costs. We scientists have known this for over one hundred years. But there is good news; we can do something about it. We don't need futuristic technology - we can solve it today. By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.
Dr. John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Playing loose with the facts
It's a good meme, the only problem is you are just as dishonest as the person you are attempting to pillory. In your story,
"In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. "
The problem is not ONE of those events can be, without significant doubt, attributed to climate change. Your call out of SuperStorm Sandy is simply channeling of populist hearsay. The vast extent of damage caused by Sandy was due primarily to extremely poor infrastructure. Sandy was a category I hurricane on the saffir-simpson scale. Which, according to NOAA has the following effect
"No real damage to building structures. Damage primarly to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Also, some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage" (See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/laescae.html)
In other words, whole neighborhoods should not have been destroyed because of a cat I hurricane. They were destroyed because man built at and below sea level.
I tire, as do other scientists from other professions, of the overstatement and over-politization of climate "debate" (also known as angry children screaming). Your side of the aisle is as guilty of "playing with facts" as those who attempt to completely deny the measured temperature record. You talk about convenient weather events as if they are climate, but would dismiss other weather events as not being climate when those events "don't fit the story". As a scientist, I would not deem the partial rebound of Arctic sea ice as sure sign of global cooling, just as I don't take drought or Sandy as sure signs of the effects of global warming.
Your side hardly ever makes clear to the average citizen that climate alarm is based exclusively on model prediction and that those models have proven to be less than accurate. In other words, you only tell part of the story and hope that nobody asks about other possibilities. That's the real "inconvenient truth"
Selective use of facts, doesn't bolster your scientific case. It weakens it, substantially.
You might be right, we (humans) might be having this terrible effect on climate. You might be wrong, too. It could be substantially cyclical and your proposed remedies have significant (negative) effect on functioning society and economy. Your remedies might be worse than the malady.
You never once question whether cheap energy (which to your way of thinking absolutely causes climate change) for the poor lifts more people out of poverty than rising temperatures (and seas) impacts people on the Jersey shore. A little warming might be the price of vastly improving the human condition. And make no mistake, improving the human condition takes energy.
It is your arrogant assuredness that even when the models are wrong you declare them to be right that should give every free thinker significant pause.
I'm not a "denier" in any sense of the word. I can read temperature graphs and the 0.8C increase in global surface temperature since 1890. I can read trends of sea-surface height increasing at about 3mm/year (11.7 inches per century) and have little reason to doubt these measurements. I can also see absolute abuse of these facts with animations that try to scare the hell out of people by showing what happens to Manhattan with 5,10 or 15M ocean rises (16,32,48 times the current rate of sea rise!). I can also see that for 1.5 decades, the global temperatures have NOT risen (contrary to those infallible models).
I can see scientists who say "it's the CO2 stupid" also have no solutions that significantly reduce our rate of excess CO2 emission. If your models are right, then limiting CO2 growth by 10% means that climactic Armageddon arrives just a few years later. After all, doubling of CO2 is doubling, no matter how you get there. According to your models, the final effect will be the same. In simple terms, if everybody drives a Prius, you still have CO2 emissions, CO2 doubles in only a slightly longer timeframe (within the space of our current "pause"), and you therefore still "cook the planet".
Troll call!
You know… your language marks you as an utter rank denier, hands down.
Umm… You are correct.. Exact ties between weather and climate are not there. I certainly haven't seen anything other than informed opinions. We do know that some weather patterns are fundamentally changing, and we know that we we can expect more extreme weather events and damage. All of this was predicted and is now being seen.
Here's Bob Sandford talking about the Calgary floods.
It is entertaining to see you lament people who built at ocean level and yet had their properties damaged. I would remind you to look at ocean rise studies again. By any count those people built a foot higher out of the water. In short… sea level rise, with higher storm surge, with winds driven harder by climate change, whipped up a lot more force than the original builders would have designed for.
That's when your uneducated language really kicks in. Hitting on standard Al Gore buzzwords and denier tactics. Its just a bunch of FUD… Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. I'm betting you spend more time on Watts Up With That than with a text book.
Mixing economics and science… What did you claim you were again? I can't keep it straight. Solar with batteries costs $0.35 per kwh installed, ergo… Solar is clearly and obviously affordable, don't take my word for that, take the utilities;
As for rising seas causing damage… Talk to your navy. (Rumor has it they build close to the shore.) These are not low cost facilities. Where oh where will I go for my vacation? My parents have two beach front condos in Hawaii. Another foot and one of them will be gone.
Your attribution that scare tactics by greenpeace and what not are somehow science or even desmogblog, or even John Abraham, are just patently retarded. Got a link showing desmogblog or John Abraham did that? Didn't think so, but I'm sure you're googling it now.
Can you tell me which paper by which scientist in which country has proved to you that climate modeling is incorrect? You're now avoiding observations (which match even the earliest models) and claiming the models are wrong. So, which one? There's a healthy 40 models, and each has quite a few papers on them. They all have different methods and methodologies, and they are all correlating with our current climate.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
70+ climate models can't be wrong
or can they… The compound/aggregate/average (or whatever other measure you want) estimated that the worldwide surface temperature in 2013 would be about 0.3C above actual measurements. That's what the vast majority of models tell us.
Please show me your favorite 10 models that don't have that estimate. Nobody really knows why, but there are many posited reasons.
Ocean rise studies? How about going with actual measurements. Since 1900, worldwide sea level rise is estimated at 8" and since 1950 - 4.5". The Storm surge from Sandy (a Category I Hurricane) was measured at 4.8 (56") feet in Atlantic City and over 9 feet (108") at the Battery. Coupled with high-tides (which added approximately 4' (48") at both places, you have storm surge + normal tide that is at least 20X the rise in sea level. Do you really think believe that if the ocean was 8" lower that there would be any significant difference.
In case you have trouble following the grade school math above. NJ, the battery, and that part of the coast were banged with the double whammy a category I hurricane and high tide. You -might- be able to argue that the Hurricane was "more intense" because of global warming. But you cannot argue that a hurricane in NY is "unprecedented". (1976 Hurricane Belle, Category I, 1985 Hurricane Gloria Category II,
1972 Hurricane Agnes, 1960 Hurricane Donna Cat 2, 1954 Hurricane Carol Cat 2).
But apparently, according to you we know storms are getting stronger. Somehow I always thought 1 was less than 2.
compound/aggregate/average? No.
The correct term you're looking for is statistically significant.
As you have neither provided a measurement model OR a projection model, the rest is hot air. I have neither apples nor oranges to compare. I refuse to guess.
The board walk on the US East coast would have been planned out long long before 1950. First construction was 1870, and rebuilt after an 1889 hurricane. My numbers stand correct. You are in error. Furthermore, 12.5" more water will deliver a huge amount more force. Just do the math.
Double checking your numbers, you neglect to subtract the elevation for the land hit by waves. 7 feet for Atlantic City.. and, the waves were by your math 104" there, leaving 20". 12.5" extra of which was from ocean rise from when the town was founded and built. So that accounts for the vast majority of the wave energy that battered the homes and businesses on the shore as well as the flooding that followed. Ocean rise accounts for the majority of the flooding and damage caused.
Which paper are you quoting for hurricane seasons? My understanding at this time is that there has been no statisically noticable shift on hurricane behaviour, and that there are no papers stating it has changed. I don't know when precisely we will see more signal than noise in the the atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Its also so long I kinda think we'll have to wait a long time. All we do know is that hurricanes should be less frequent but stronger.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Just a scientist does not act like a real scientist
He is also not very truthful:
"I'm not a "denier" in any sense of the word".
Unfortunately, just about everything he says is straight from the deniers' handbook. I doubt very much if he is s scientist but if he actually is he is a dishonest one who probably works for, or gets money from, the fossil fuel industry since they are about the only scientists who fall into the denier camp.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Definitely not a "Denier"
A denier would be somebody who calls into question the measured temperature record.
Here's what I doubt (as a scientist) – the correctness of climate models and their ability to have a reasonable forecast of climate 87 years (Year 2100) into the future.
Here's what it comes down to
If they are right – then the current set of solutions don't hope to address excess CO2 emission (I can read the Mauna Loa charts, too).
If they are wrong – there's a huge economic risk. I'm not talking economic risk to corporate America (transnationals, etc). I'm talking about economic risk to you, me, working people and poor people the world over.
Ask yourself a very basic economic question: who gains from more expensive energy?
(somebody posted that Solar energy at $.35/KwH was "cheap", apparently they don't actually look at their electric bill. That's not cheap. It's more than 4X the baseline rate in California and nearly 10X the industrial rate in the TVA).
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
He also doesn't understand economics
He asks this ridiculous question:
"Ask yourself a very basic economic question: who gains from more expensive energy?"
That is a strawman argument. Anyone who has studied the economics of Climate Change should know that the economic cost of continuing with business as usual in terms of burning fossil fuels is far more costly than switching to renewable energy, where the cots are getting less and less every year.
Of course, fossil fuel shills refuse to include externalized costs in their economic assessments. That is just dishonest.
I wonder what will be the next profession that JaS chooses to show how ignorant of the field he is.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
You somehow assume that "I'm all for fossil" and must be a "shill" of the oil industry.
I'll bet there is something that we can actually agree upon. Developing cost-effective non-fossil energy at scale is a win all the way around. Right now, there is not a good candidate. Solar and Wind are not energy dense enough to replace oil and gas. Also, if we went all electric tomorrow in our rolling fleet of cars, trains, etc, we do not have the power distribution infrastructure to handle it. It would take decades simply to build it out.
We, the US, consume about 135 Billion gallons of gasoline/year. At 33.4KWh/gallon, and 8760 hours/year this is an equivalent energy generation requirment of
135,000,000,000gallons * 33400Wh/gallon/8760 hours/year ~ 515 GWatts of generation required.
1 modern nuclear reactor is about 1 GWatt ==> 500 nuclear reactors
Sunlight energy/square meter as it hits the earth surface is about 60W/meter –> at 100% efficiency you need 8.5 Billion Square Meters of the Earth covered with 100% efficient Solar collection. 8.5 Billion Square Meters = 8500 Square Kilometers or 3300 Square miles. (Since the sun shines only half the day, you need at least 6600 square miles of solar panel). at 20% efficiency you need 33000 square miles.
and we haven't talked about Diesel consumption.
Perhaps, we should make a real start on alternative energy?
Solar costs $0.30 per kwh installed and usable right here in Canada, unsubsidized. That is what the local businesses i spoke to are spending anyways. Utility grade batteries are a available now and production is ramping up. They cost $0.05 per kwh without any volume in sales.
But don't take my word for it… Read the the link I posted before. American utilities are predicting a very disruptive shift in how they deliver power.
They predict a 22% per annum compounded rate of ingress into their market space from home PV solar alone. Their new role will be that of back up power supply, and we should see our electricity rising. They'll also stop building power stations since solar delivers during peak hours.
This process has already occurred in Hawaii and California, and is expected to spread.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
.30/kwH is NOT cheap
That is nearly 4X the price of residential power (coal, gas) in Knoxville, TN, who purchases their power from TVA.
Having said that, I'm all for developing cheap, alternative energy that really scales. It seems to me that bio-based is promising. Solar has a role. maybe wind. But they really don't have the energy density as viable replacements for what our society consumes in energy. That's physics (not models, not wishful thinking). I don't have to "believe the models" to be convinced that non-fossil energy development is critical.
And if you believe the models predictions, then you have to find an energy solution that will work in India and China. If you think that the cost of energy doesn't matter, you probably should re-examine your assumptions.
Again with the denier thinking.
Pollution isn't free. Flooding sea side towns isn't free. Rebuilding from severe hurricanes isn't free.
Climate Change damage isn't free. I am also expected to pay more for my insurace because of flood damage. (guestimates at $10 a month) I am paying more taxes to fix and repair damaged infrastructure. (guestimates at $25 a month) All of this was predicted a long time ago.
My power would go from $60 a month to about $120. (In Alberta we pay an interesting array of additional surcharges to the tune of $30. Fossil fuels are subsidized down to about $0.07.) I'm paying more taxes because of climate change . I'm paying more for insurance because of climate change. (I haven't gone solar yet, because I have two 50 year old spruces in my front yard. It blocks the light.)
You persist measuring everying by the lowest common denominator. When I went to university I drove a Hyundai Pony. It was cheap, heck it was practically biodegradable. I don't drive a Hyundai Pony any more. If you look around you'll realize that not everyone is driving crappy student cars. In fact you might say that they are willing to pay more. But hey! My Pony was cheaper AND more fuel efficient than my Mazda 5.
With zero evidence, you've defined pricing erroneously and simultaneously ignored demand. (New to this economics thing are you?) You have not looked at any costs associated with your bills, and you have made no effort to understand what your future costs will be in the future.
So in light of what I just layed out, reread this; (the utilities are afraid)
If energy price is such a concern, why is Germany the economic power house of Europe? They pay $0.35 for their fossil fuel electricity. It doesn't sound like their economy was struggling with that.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
More denier nonsense
JaS makes this ridiculous statement:
"if we went all electric tomorrow in our rolling fleet of cars, trains, etc"
No one except deniers bring up this ridiculous argument. Most rational people are suggesting a slowdown and reduction in our use of fossil fuels at a pace which will allow CO2 concentrations to stabilize at first then to come down when more and more renewable energy sources are brought on stream
Just admit it JaS, you are nothing but an anti-science AGW denier with your head in the sand.
You debloggers should address
You debloggers should address some of his more salient points if you can.
No. Not really.
He has yet to make a single point. This is just entertainment.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Not seasons... actual Hurricanes
The hurricanes listed made actual landfall in the New Jersey, New York, Long Island Area.
The cover the range of category 2 and category 1.
"We KNOW they will be less frequent and MORE intensive". I'm really trying to understand the statistics behind that statement. Really. I don't understand. Sandy was a Cat 1 (not stronger), accumulated cyclonic energy appears to have no trend (up, down, cyclical). $ damage is higher, but so is population density.
I forgive you for lying about your credentials...
You've not read any material on this and you're not familiar with basic statistics.
First we understand the physics of a hurricane including what causes them and what amplifies their strength. (Bare with me I'm going by wrote memory here.) Lower troposphere temperatures in the upper atmosphere sheers off or kills hurricanes. I can't remember what increases wind speeds, but the damage increase is exponential.
So, less likely to happen but when it does its more damaging.
There is no clear evidence that this is happening yet. I think you are operating on the belief that this is happening now or that it must be happening now. The consensus is that there is a lag of the real forces required, which is further hampered by the fact that there is a 60-80 year cycle to the storm season.
Basic statistics imply that even with climate change enhanced storms you will see some storms that are weaker. That's why Hansen prefers his standard deviation temperature graphs. Even a not so hot year has a lot of hotter days.
Here's some light reading for anyone who's interested...
An attempt at quantifying storm activity;
Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment
Predicting Fewer Storms;
Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming
More Damaging storms;
Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years
need to refine response
While I see Ridley's piece for the hand-waving misdirection it is, I think Dr Abraham's response needs refining.
For instance,this piece of mispeaking: "[Ridley stated] that the benefits of rising sea-levels outweighs the consequences". Ridley did not class SLR as a 'benefit', but it is clear that he thinks that the cost of rising sea-levels would be outweighed by the possibility of the benefits of rising temperature. This is of course laughable over-reach, but as I've expressed it, it actually reflects Ridley's claim better than Dr. A's.
This correction aside, Ridley's reframing of a leaked draft, simplistic assertions about enhanced CO2 benefits, and his unsupported assertions about the IPCC position yet to be released, is seen to be typically audacious clap-trap.
I was referring to the 'just
I was referring to the 'just a scientist' points.
cant dismiss those with rhetoric.
Alarmism is based on model predictions, not observations.
Who's alarmist?
I'm certainly not alarmed.
I haven't looked at any models in a while. The observations clearly indicate past models are correct.
If you are referring to the the current 'pause' in global surface temperatures then I'd suggest you are deluded as to their meaning. Look closely at your leaked IPCC graphs again. The hind casts also show unforeseen (preseen?) discrepancies. This does not mean the models are incorrect.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Clearly indicate? Clearly?
Clearly indicate? Clearly? But you haven't looked at the models recently.
And yes I'm referring to the "pause" — I'm not cherry picking a particular start date, everyone agrees that there is no statistical warming for at least 10 years. (Some have 15 years, others argue 17 years …). The point is, right now models and measurements are divergent. For how long? It hasn't been long enough to either declare models are crud or models are the models are correct. It does leave room for significant doubt.
Anybody who doesn't have doubt about model projections isn't really being honest with themselves.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Who is being honest here?
Certainly not deniers like JaS:
"Anybody who doesn't have doubt about model projections isn't really being honest with themselves".
I doubt very much if JaS knows very much about physics or how models are put together and used. A good read up on discrepancies between models and observation can be found here:
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Perhaps you can enlighten as
Perhaps you can enlighten as to assumptions in your favorite model?
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
Don't know anything about models or physics, do you?
If JaS was a real scientist (and an honest one) he would know that you don't need fancy and expensive computers or models to show that increasing greenhouse gases will result in a warming of the Earth. Good grief, Svante Arrhenius was able to calculate the effects of increasing CO2 back in 1896, long before computers were invented.
Green house gas warming is defined by simple physics. Just what kind of a scientist are you, you don't seem to understand simple chemistry and physics? I first learned about IR absorption by CO2 and C=O as an undergraduate studying chemistry many years ago. I doubt if physics and chemistry have changed since then but as a denier you must think so.
Going to scarborough fair?
In fact you personally argued that it isn't possible to tie weather to climate change. Yet turn around and demand it. It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about. Would you like some Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme for the road?
I have no doubt about the models. You certainly haven't raised any doubts by showing up here all ignorant and refusing outright to back anything you say with any facts or citations.
First… we are talking about global warming right? I'm curious because you have chosen not to look at that or talk about it. You want to dwell strictly and solely on surface temperatures for some undisclosed reason. I notice for instance that you are ignoring things like accelerated arctic melt. Last I checked, ice melts when its warm and it takes a lot of energy, and this too is way out on the models. Is that an inconvenient subject?
Overestimated Global Warming for the Last 20 Years;
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that forced and internal variation might combine differently in observations than in models. For example, the forced trends in models are modulated up and down by simulated sequences of ENSO events, which are not expected to coincide with the observed sequence of such events.
So its saying that models do not predict future weather events, such as El Nino, and La Nina which dramatically affect global surface temperature readings. Here's Hansen 2012;
Since I know you won't read it, I'll leave you with this useful quote.
"Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (Nino index in Fig. 1)."
I'm also curious to know who told you that climate models predict weather? No one anywhere has said that to my knowledge. I certainly haven't seen any articles stating that. So what inbred bumpkin told you that?
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
1. Claim by catastrophic
1. Claim by catastrophic global warming community: Excess CO2 is the predominant (extreme view is ONLY) cause of warming.
I'm not going to argue against that claim. I will simply accept it as fact.
2. Implication: the only solution is -worldwide- reduction in excess CO2 emission. It is a global problem after all. Since the claim is that CO2 is the dominant governor, that's what you have to control.
3. Primary emitters: China (29%), US (16%), India (5.6%), Russia (5.4%), Japan (3.5%). In that order. These 5 countries account for about 60% of the total excess CO2. The worldwide estimated total is about 33.4 Gigatons in 2011 (and 31.6 in 2009)
In 2009, estimated emissions: China (7.46 GTon), US (5.28 GT), India (1.89)
In 2011, estimated emissions: China (9.7GTon), US (5.42 GT), India (1.97)
In two years, the increase in China's emissions is 41% of the US total emission. China's increase in CO2 emission was 2.24 GT, US: .14 GT. You do the math. If you want a solution (See Claim 1 and Implication 2), the solution MUST be viable in China. Somehow, I believe that they will select the least expensive source energy. Call me crazy, but cost often trumps, well just about everything. This is mostly the reason they are building a new coal power plant every week.
Figure out the solution for China, the rest falls into place. Come up with a solution that is "only twice as expensive", it's unlikely to be a viable solution.
I don't subscribe to that point view.
1) There is no Catastrophic Global Warming community. I'm no member. You have not said or backed up a single thing you've ranted about. Not a one. But you have demonstrated that you don't know anything about global warming. How you can meaningfully conclude anything about something you are clearly ignorant of, is quite beyond me.
2) Correct.. buts its way more complicated than that. I'd just go with a carbon tax and be done with it. Nothing else will work.
3) Answering your question is incredibly simple. You are deciding to intentionally export jobs and money. I mean, we all know its coming, right? But who are we going to buy the electric cars from? The solar panels? Hmm? (I think GE USA did wind.)
I guess I'll be giving my money to those nice Greens in Germany.
Maybe you can start buying some of those new fangled (expensive) zero emissions CCS coal plants from China?
Yeah, I'm sure your wish to run up a huge trade deficit will work out real well for America.
So here's another interesting factoid for you. We've been exporting emissions monitoring and acid rain preventing gear hand over fist to China. This is because in the 1970's we started worrying about that stuff, then later developed solutions, then later turned it into an industry worth billions;
Behold! Acid Rain for Sale, just $200 a ton.
This creates jobs in North America, and fights our trade deficit.
Solar does not cost double. In many places, it was rolled out privately subsidized to save money, and that has nothing to do with the environment. This trend of private roll out is expected to continue.
And their great ad;
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
The argument of global
The argument of global warming IS and HAS BEEN surface temperature. More to the point, estimates of global surface temperature were estimated to be about 0.3C higher today than actual measurements. The fundamental issue of doubt in the predictive capability of climate models is that while they did a damn fine job of predicting measured temps in the 80's and 90's, the record is spotty for 00's and early 10's. Just when the models predict an acceleration of surface temps, mother earth is responding differently.
Ice: Arctic Sea Ice is reducing. Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing. Somehow you don't seem to mention that. Please web on over to cryosphere today. Arctic Ice has a notable trend downwards, Antarctic a noticeable trend up. They almost balance (Not quite), but we only have measurements since 1979.
You say: "This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability."
and which is more likely: errors in external forcing, model response, or internal climate variability?
Model response could also be a incorrect estimate of sensitivity to CO2 in the models.
Finally, I'm not asking climate simulations to predict weather. I would also expect people to refrain from attempting to correlate every weather event as being made worse/caused by global warming and pointing to a strong storm of "this is just the type of weather than climate scientists have warned us about" So was hurricane Carla, and Camille and all the other destructive Category 5 storms that have hit over the centuries.
Until "conclusively" shown otherwise, many modern events do not seem to be unprecedented (Dust Bowl of the 1930s, a long string of Hurricanes hitting NYC area over many decades, etc.). What was unprecedented in Sandy? It hit at high tide.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
More misinformation and nonsense from JaS
Here is more typical denier nonsense and ignorance of the subject:
"The argument of global warming IS and HAS BEEN surface temperature".
Only in the deluded minds of an AGW denier. The science behind global warming is that there is an energy imbalance occurring at TOA meaning that less energy is being emitted than is being absorbed thus causing an increase of energy in the system. JaS, although he pretends to be a scientist probably doesn't understand the difference between energy and temperature. This positive energy imbalance can show up in a number of different ways; ice melting on Greenland and the Antarctic, warming of the lower atmosphere and warming of the oceans, especially at depth.
Depending on other factors, the energy imbalance will be distributed in different ways at different times. This of course is something that AGW deniers such as JaS refuse to accept.
Just what sort of a scientist are you, JaS? I don't believe for one minute you really are one.
Global Warming was never just about surface temperatures. Ever. Read. Learn. You can't even look at global warming without considering oceans and their effects. Here's the First report, chapter 8 gets a little into oceans and their effects on global warming models;
So I guess they decided they needed to know more and get better observations underwater;
And now we have a better idea about ocean heat content. You'd almost think they knew what they would find. Now we have a clear understanding of ocean heat content in AR5 (Ch3_Obs-oceans_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch03_All_Final).
Your claims that they did a good job early on and do not now, are patently absurd. I recommend you read some more. I'll go with the AR5 report (Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final) hyped by a high schooler named Tony Watts. Page 39, Figure 1.4 is the graph most pointed at;
Read section 1.3.1;
"Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2010 generally fall well within the projections made in all of the past assessments."
"There are several additional points to consider about Figure 1.4: (1) the model projections account for different emissions scenarios but do not fully account for natural variability; (2) the AR4 results for 1990–2000 account for the Mt. Pinatubo volcanic eruption, while the earlier assessments do not; (3) the TAR and AR4 results are based on MAGICC, a simple climate model that attempts to represent the results from more complex models, rather than the actual results from the full three-dimensional climate models; and (4) the bars on the side represent the range of results for the scenarios at the end of the time period and are not error bars."
"Analyses by Rahmstorf et al. show that accounting for ENSO events and solar cycle changes would enhance the comparison with the AR4 and earlier projections."
They do not include ENSO weather events like La Nina and El Nino, as I already informed you.
"In summary, the globally-averaged surface temperatures are well within the uncertainty range of all previous IPCC projections, and generally are in the middle of the scenario ranges. However, natural variability is likely the dominating effect in evaluating these early times in the scenario evaluations as noted by Hawkins and Sutton (2009)."
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
The catastrophic argument
The catastrophic argument of excess CO2 is that the earth's climate system is overly sensitive to CO2. Arhennius experiment would indicate that a doubling of pre-industrial levels of CO2 (~280ppm –> 560ppm, currently we are at about 400ppm give or take) would raise temperature by about 1C. The earth's climate is very very far away from the idealized experiment.
Please don't peddle a "grade school" experiment (which all scientists can understand and have no reason to doubt) as the "obviousness" of increased sensitivity of Earth's climate system. If we just went with just grade school experiments, temp increase would be 1C by about the year 2100. The "catastrophe" of global warming wouldn't be castrophic and fear would not be a motivator.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
JaS now switches to ad hominem comments
JaS, what gives you the right to make an ad hominem attack on a celebrated scientist? Svante Arrhenius is a Nobel laureate (1903) in Chemistry, to refer to his ground breaking work as "grade school experiment" only shows what a despicable and ignorant person you really are. No wonder you hide behind a ridiculous name such as "Just a Scientist", you are an anathema to real scientists who frequent this blog.
Stop peddling your lies and arrogant nonsense.
It also appears that you know nothing about simple chemistry such as Henry's Law and the Clausius Clapeyron relationship and other feed backs.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Oh sorry, Al gore calls it
Oh sorry, Al gore calls it "high school physics". My apologies if you find his characterization of Nobel-worthy research of circa 1900 to be non-deragatory and "grade school science" to be deragatory.
I was calling out, properly, the mis-characterization of Arhennius' work being the rationale of climate models' sensitivity estimates for CO2. If you used his results, without change or adjustment, then the earth would warm to a much lower degree than estimated by models. There would be no reason to continue climate modeling experiments. And I don't believe that is rational, either.
You happily call me a "denier". I'm not, but you've labeled me that way because I'm not a "believer". You probably think I'm anti-science. I'm not. I'd rather climate scientists be given the "political" room to adjust (if appropriate) estimates of warming over the next century and sensitivity to CO2. Does that mean I support more research/study? You betcha. At the same time, we should be investing a lot more in non-fossil energy research.
I don't have to agree with your basic rationale (Catastrophic global warming) to agree with you on the wisdom of moving to non-fossil energy. In other words, I can be a "denier" and support your goals, but not your means. And if I read your goals correctly, it should be non-fossil-based energy independence.
Ian Forrester replied on Permalink
More proof of your denier pedigree
JaS says:
"Al gore calls it "high school physics""
If anyone Googles this ("high school physics" "al gore") they will find loads and loads of links to denier sites.
You are so stupid or dishonest that you cannot see the difference between you describing research conducted over 100 years ago as "grade school experiment" with a very simple experiment which doesn't work too well even with today's much more sophisticated equipment. Your comment was a nasty ad hominem attack on the very basis of our understanding of the effects of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
You are a despicable person with your nasty attacks on science and scientists.
Do tell.
I find this interesting. Are you saying that the physics is wrong and the energy absorbtion by the atmosphere is incorrect? And if you claim this, why, and what paper are you citing anyways?
And why are you only speaking of CO2? There's many mroe green houses gases.
Just a Scientist replied on Permalink
Why are you talking only
Why are you talking only about CO2?
Because that is exactly what policymakers want to regulate. That is what all the _political_ discussion is all about. It's the policymakers who levy the taxes and provide the tax incentives and fund the basic research granting agencies. To move the needle towards non-fossil energy, the right incentives and investments have to be made.
Does anybody here believe our government is properly funding the basic and applied research to move us towards a predominantly non-fossil energy base?
That is patently untrue and it never was. Carbon is merely the unit of measure for all green house gases;
Carbon carbon carbon… in terms of emissions refers to green house gases. Check your fine print and you'll find that under the hood of any policy, like Kyoto for instance.
Now that you are enlightened, you know why the sheep are really nervous in New Zealand. (hint, methane) :-)
No. I don't think my government takes climate change seriously at all. Canada's current push is to develop better pipeline technology. Which of course will not be available for Keystone at the rate their going.
SocraticGadfly replied on Permalink
More about any "pause"
The latest report addresses the issue of a "pause" in climbing temperatures, noting that at least part of it is due to oceans absorbing more heat.
If JaS were what he claims to be, he'd know that.
Of course, again, he's not.


text:
TEL AVIV, Israel - A senior Israeli military intelligence official said on Tuesday that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons last month in his battle against insurgent groups. It was the first time that Israel has accused the embattled Syrian leader of using his stockpile of nonconventional weapons.
Israel's assessment, based on visual evidence of alleged attacks, could raise pressure on the U.S. and other Western countries to intervene in the Syrian conflict. Britain and France recently announced that they had evidence that Assad's government had used chemical weapons. Although the U.S. says it has not been able to verify these claims, President Barack Obama has warned that the introduction of chemical weapons by Assad would be a "game changer."
Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the head of research and analysis in Israeli military intelligence, told a security conference in Tel Aviv that Assad has used chemical weapons multiple times. Among the incidents were attacks documented by the French and British near Damascus last month. He cited images of people hurt in the alleged attacks, but gave no indication that he had other evidence, such as soil samples, typically used to verify chemical weapons use.
"To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used lethal chemical weapons against the militants in a series of incidents over the past months, including the relatively famous incident of March 19," Brun said. "Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used."
He said sarin, a lethal nerve agent, was probably used. He also said the Syrian regime was using less lethal chemical weapons, and that Russia has continued to arm the Syrian military with weapons such as advanced SA-17 air defense missiles.
"The fact that chemical weapons were used without an appropriate response is a very disturbing development because it could signal that such a thing is legitimate," he said. "I think we need to be very worried that chemical weapons will reach elements that are less responsible."
Reacting to Brun's comments, Pentagon spokesman George Little said the U.S. "continues to assess reports of chemical weapons use in Syria."
"The use of such weapons would be entirely unacceptable," he added." `'We reiterate in the strongest possible terms the obligations of the Syrian regime to safeguard its chemical weapons stockpiles, and not to use or transfer such weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah."
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said such claims had "to be studied carefully." He said previous chemical weapons allegations led to politicized inquiries. Lavrov was speaking through a translator in response to a question asked at a NATO news conference in Brussels. Russia has been weary of foreign intervention in Syria and maintains support for the Assad regime.
Israel, which borders southwestern Syria, has been warily watching the Syrian civil war since the fighting erupted there in March 2011. Although Assad is a bitter enemy, Israel has been careful not to take sides, partly because the Assad family has kept the border with Israel quiet for the past 40 years and partly because of fears of what would happen if he is toppled.
Israeli officials are especially concerned that Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons and other advanced arms could reach the hands of Assad's ally, the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon, or Islamic extremist groups trying to oust him. The concern is that if Assad is overthrown, any of these groups could turn his sophisticated arsenal against Israel. Hezbollah battled Israel to a monthlong stalemate in 2006.
At a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday, Israel's defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, laid out a number of "clear red lines" to Syria that could trigger an Israeli response. Among them were transferring sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah and other "rogue elements" in Syria, cross-border attacks into Israel or "rogue elements" getting hold of Syrian chemical weapons.
The Israeli military has fired at targets inside Syria on several occasions in response to gunfire or mortar shells landing in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Israel has all but admitted that it carried out an airstrike in Syria in January that destroyed a shipment of anti-aircraft missiles believed to be headed to Hezbollah.
"We proved it. When they crossed these red lines, we operated, we acted," Yaalon said.
Britain and France informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last month that they have reliable evidence Assad's forces used chemical weapons that caused injuries and deaths. They cited soil samples and interviews with witnesses and opposition figures.
The two countries asked the U.N. chief to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in two locations near Damascus on March 19, as well as in the city of Homs on Dec. 23. Ban appointed an investigative team, but the Syrian government has largely blocked its effort. Syria, meanwhile, has accused rebels of using chemical weapons.
During a trip to Israel last month, Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons would be a "game changer." He said if confirmed, "the international community has to act on that additional information," but did not detail what the next steps would be.
Amos Yadlin, a retired chief of Israeli military intelligence who heads the Institute for National Security Studies that hosted Tuesday's conference, urged the U.S. to intervene. He said the red line in Syria had been crossed and that the U.S. should act.
Not doing so would "strengthen the opinion of those, particularly in Israel, who are suspicious of America's commitment when red lines are crossed," he said. He suggested the U.S. impose a no-fly zone over Syria or even initiate a bombing campaign similar to the one conducted against the regime of late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
"So far they haven't applied any leverage to Bashar, and this has allowed him to do what Gadhafi could never do," Yadlin told The Associated Press.
Associated Press writers Peter James Spielmann at the United Nations, Robert Burns in Amman, Jordan, Don Melvin in Brussels, and Kimberly Dozier in Washington contributed.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
About WWF ZambiaVictoria Falls on the Zambezi River, one of Zambia's natural heritage.
About Zambia
© Griffin Shanungu/WWF Zambia
With increasing human population, demand and pressure on the natural resources is also increasing. Demand for agricultural land and human settlements has risen which exerts pressure on forests and protected areas.
WWF Zambia Country Office
This country office falls under WWF's Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Programme Office (ESARPO) that helps coordinate activities Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
WWF has been involved in active conservation work in eastern and southern Africa since 1962, beginning with the purchase of land in Nakuru (Kenya) to allow for the establishment of an enlarged park to help support the conservation of the flamingos of Lake Nakuru
The first black rhino sanctuary in Kenya was set up in Lake Nakuru National Park at the height of rhino poaching in Kenya (1970s to 1980s).
Eastern and Southern Africa contains some of the world's most unique and spectacular bio-diversity. It is home to critical places (Coastal East Africa, Africa Rift Lakes, Miombo and the Namib-Karoo) and key flagship species (Great Apes, African Elephant, African Rhinos and Marine Turtles).


text:
The adidas Yeezy Boost 350 v2 "Antlia" Releases Tomorrow
June 21, 2019 0 by Ross Dwyer
The adidas Yeezy 350 Boost is a low-top sneaker designed by Kanye West. The shoes first debuted at the YEEZY Season fashion show in February 2015 and new colorways were unveiled during YEEZY Season 3 on February 11th, 2016. The retail price for the shoe is $200 for the original and $220 for the V2. The latest "TRFRM" and "Hyperspace" colorways released on March 16th, 2019, followed by the "Clay" colorway on March 30th, 2019, and a new glow-in the dark variation is slated for a release later this summer. Read the articles below for further release details and price information.
release date / November 18th, 2017
price / $200-220


text:
Night Vision Wood LED Watch
- $159,00
Options disponibles
Sold Out
The minimal appearance of Kisai Night Vision Wood will have people wondering why your watch has no hands.
Press the button and all will be revealed. LEDs concealed beneath the wood surface will shine through to display the time.
Easy to read at a glance, the watch has time & date functions, an alarm and a light-up animation. Made of natural wood, you can choose from dark sandalwood or maple with blue, red or green LEDs.
A Minimal LED Watch Design With A Unique Time Display
Kisai Night Vision Wood is one of the easiest to read watches from Tokyoflash Japan. Take a look at the diagram on the right.
Hours are shown in the outer ring in the same position as hours on a clock, the flashing light in the ring indicates the current hour. Minutes are shown digitally in the centre.
The date is shown in the same way, touch the lower button and the month will be shown in the outer ring and the date digitally in the centre.
For more information, take a look at the video demonstration below. A PDF user manual is featured on this page which includes more detailed information.
A Light, Wooden Wrist Watch With An Original Hexagonal Form
Kisai Night Vision Wood has been carefully crafted from 100% natural wood in very limited quantities. One of its most attractive features is the laminated watch face which is recessed against the uniquely shaped case.
The watch has an adjustable strap and weighs just 60 grams, a lightweight watch design suitable for small and large wrists.
Like all wood watches from Tokyoflash Japan, a clear coating has been applied to Kisai Night Vision Wood for protection and durability.
A USB Rechargeable LED Watch Design
Kisai Night Vision Wood is a USB rechargeable watch. To recharge, connect to your computer with the USB cable provided. One full charge will take 3.5 hours and each charge should last 1 month. There are 300 charges in one battery and the standard LIR2032 battery is replaceable.
A light-up animation has been programmed into Kisai Night Vision Wood which can be activated to light up once every 15 minutes between 6pm and midnight. See the video below for a demonstration.
- Displays the time and date
- Alarm mode
- Unisex design for small & large wrists
- USB rechargeable: unscrew & connect to your computer
- USB cable and screw driver included
- Light-up animation feature (can be turned off)
- Natural wood case and adjustable wood strap
- Clear coating for protection
- Clasp: simple fold over clasp with push button
- Minimum wrist size: 100 mm (approx.)
- Maximum wrist size: 210 mm (approx.)
- Case Dimensions: 43 mm x 48 mm x 11.5 mm
- Weight: 60 grams
- Battery: LIR2032 rechargeable & replaceable battery
- Japanese and English instructions
- One year warranty
|Watch Attributes
|Strap Material
|Case Material
|Stainless Steel


text:
Kirsten Dunst is said to be a candidate for an Oscar for her performance in Melancholia, the latest film from Danish director Lars von Trier. She deserves the accolade but it says something about the film that the first thing to admire, the first thing I felt when I left the cinema, was admiration and pity for the actress who played in what I had just seen. For Dunst is the vehicle with which Von Trier takes us on a journey right into the heart of a particularly desperate depression. Dunst's character is implicated in two narrative arcs, the second of which takes place days after the first. The first concerns her character- Justine's- wedding to Michael (played by Alexander Skarsgard). The second concerns Justine's relationship with Claire (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg), her sister, and Claire's husband and son as a planet, Melancholia, heads towards the earth for a collision which will end everything. There are three interesting films at least here- one about depression, a second about a bourgeois wedding and the third about the day at which the world ends. The real issue that Von Trier faces throughout the film is how to draw these three films together. He does it, if he does it through the relationship between the conventional Claire and the depressed Justine.
That contrast runs through the film. It could be Trier wants us to understand Justine's predicament: I'm not sure that without understanding whether his portrait of depression is accurate, I can draw useful lessons about depression from the film. I am not a psychologist and therefore cannot really comment on how depression works in this scenario. What I think is more interesting is the set of questions that Justine's behaviour pose about our own conventional society. During the wedding her listless behaviour mocks the ceremony surrounding her. One of the comic master pieces in the film comes from Udo Kier, a wedding planner, who won't look at Justine because she has ruined his wedding! But there is a sense in the wedding scene that Kier's character is not alone. All these middle class sophisticated individuals are not demanding that Justine and Michael marry but that they satisfy their expectations of how you marry. The theatre of the wedding is important to them. Justine's behaviour turns those expectations on their head and you feel the embarrassment of the guests as she and her family manage to destroy their theatre. Nowhere is this frustration more evident than in John Claire's husband who like a stage director imagines the wedding as his production and is furious when Justine mangles her lines.
The second story line about the planet is equally a stage production and this time it is nature not a woman who fails. John has designed a scientific (it could be a theological, historical) explanation about why Melancholia won't hit the earth. Again he is trying to stage manage and control the world. Again he fails. His response is fatal. His wife's response is to retreat into anxiety. Justine though becomes calmer and calmer, more and more sublime, till at the end she creates a religious retreat- a golden cave- for her family. In this sense the conventional pieties cannot protect the other characters. Claire who has so much to lose- a husband, a son- cannot relinquish her ideals about life. Her very kindness acts against her- as she prepares to greet the end of the world with a glass of chardonnay. Two situations reveal the powerlessness of the bourgeois individual: in the first human artifice can be undermined, in the second natural forces twist the carefully created bourgeois world apart. Artifice hence becomes as Trier argues the centre of the world that we all believe in: the world of jobs and marriages is a world of human creation and due for inevitable destruction- the paths of glory lead but to the grave.
This is a nihilistic film. There is no hope for humanity post the apocalypse and all our creations- divine and scientific will fall before the end of the world. It did make me wonder, what it will be like billions of years hence when your and my children look out their windows to see the Sun expand in fire or die in silence. This is a beautiful film but its nihilism makes it incredibly hard to watch.
October 24, 2011
Posted by Gracchi at 11:47 pm 1 comments DiggIt! Del.icio.us
Labels: Cinema
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman
As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
Sarah Palin - revolting or revering?
No Trackbacks


text:
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, DENTON, TX. Lecturer, Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies. The Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies invites applications for the position of lecturer. This is a 1-year position that carries a 4/4 teaching load. Salary competitive. Required qualifications: Earned Ph. D. in philosophy and a minimum of 5 years full-time university teaching experience. AOS: Modern Philosophy. AOC: Ancient Philosophy. Preferred qualifications: experience teaching epistemology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of literature; scholarly record of interest in or support of the department's long-standing and continuing focus on the history of philosophy; familiarity with some branch of environmental philosophy that complements the department's strengths in this area.
In which issues concerning the profession of philosophy are
bitched griped about
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The line starts here...
32 comments:
That requirement of a minimum of five years' full time teaching experience is so demanding that excellent candidates who got TT jobs this year wouldn't be qualified, but it is also mighty specific. Any chance the ad was written to be perfect for someone the search committee already has in mind?
- January 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM
@ Anon 6:40
If that's true, and if I were the person who that ad was written to fit, I'd say "with friends like these..."
- January 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM
Denton is a strangely cool town for Texas. You know how people say something derisive about the state of Texas qualified by "...except Austin! That place is cool!"? Denton is also an exception, just on a significantly smaller scale.
- January 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM
my guess is that economic pressures meant that someone who had been previously employed there got downsized, and this was the department and Dean's way of hiring that person back, at least for a year.
- January 29, 2012 at 7:15 PM
No idea what they were thinking, but I suspect that the five years teaching could include also teaching as a graduate instructor. If that's true, it really wouldn't exclude a lot of people.
Word verification: proust.
- January 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Sounds to me like an unhealthy department. They can't agree on what they want/need, so they come up with a terrible ad.
- January 29, 2012 at 8:48 PM
I think second guessing ads is in general relatively fruitless. And if there is an "inside" candidate, then, as 6:47 points out, it's not clear how the department is doing that person any favors.
But if you want to waste way too much time (or have insomnia...sigh), go take a look at the department pages. The tenured and TT faculty all carry between 1-1 to 2-2 course loads. It is a PhD program with a fair number of graduate students. Most of the faculty specialize in Environmental Ethics and "Environmental Philosophy." Indeed there is a Center devoted to this area of study. (Someone also does "philosophy of food." Interesting.)
The VAP position is a 4-4 load. The desired areas of specialization and teaching competence mentioned in the ad map very neatly onto a set of courses currently being taught by a single individual who is listed as an adjunct and has been teaching four courses a semester for just the last year. Perhaps they are looking to hire him back or perhaps the department is looking for anyone to cover a set of courses they want taught, but which no regular faculty is interested in teaching.
The adjunct has been teaching the following courses: Epistemology, Philosophy of Mind, Ancient Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Literature, and a gob of Intro to Philosophy sections. Apparently Denton is a land where named chairs teach environmental ethics and adjuncts teach philosophy of mind. A wondrous, distant land.
- January 30, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Then again, be a VAP for 5 years in small departments and it's not that surprising that you would be able to teach that many different courses...I'm in a small department and I have to be able to cover pretty much anything they need, except continental. And I'm sure I'll be asked to do that sometime soon...
- January 30, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Hargrove and Callicott are there, so interest in enviro is probably so the hire fits in. It's a reall strong enviro dept.
As for the other stuff that's probably just the courses that are already on the books. Most of us don't teach 4 versions of our PhD, but whatever is needed to make the curriculum work. They're not necessary conditions, but desiderata--if you fit those things, you're lucky.
Earned PhD. well that's just academic talk that has probably filtered down from other searches--there are honorary degrees out there, I'm sure not many in philosophy, but they're out there. Pretty standard description especially in searches for Deans etc.
5 years experience that's pretty sick, unless the pay is commensurate or better than a 5 yr TT (to compensate for moving etc.)
Like all of these positions--for the right person in the right circumstances this might be an great opportunity.
- January 30, 2012 at 5:15 AM
Say what you will, UNT has a great radio station. It's call sign? KUNT.
- January 30, 2012 at 5:48 AM
I have no comment on the ad, but Denton the town is actually pretty OK. Anon 6:48 is on point. It's part of the "triangle" of Dallas/ Fort Worth/ Denton (that everyone outside of Denton just refers to as "Dallas/ Fort Worth"). I was quite surprised when I was there.
- January 30, 2012 at 8:13 AM
Is this on JFP web only ads. I can't find JFP anymore on the APA website. Where is it?
And the radio station is KNTU.
- January 30, 2012 at 8:15 AM
I like the ad that showed up on the Chronicle's website for St. Mary's U., which includes this gem: "A working familiarity with the critical realism of Bernard Lonergan is essential for participation in the department's mission."
Call me cynical, but it wouldn't shock me if they already have a candidate in mind. That, or they have quite a mission statement.
- January 30, 2012 at 9:04 AM
@ 5:48
Yeah, that's the old joke, but lest readers believe there actually is a college radio station out there with those letters (which would be just a little too good, right?): the UNT radio station is actually KNTU.
- January 30, 2012 at 9:30 AM
- Mr. Zero said...
I suspect that the five years teaching could include also teaching as a graduate instructor.
Since the ad says "five years full-time" experience. I don't think time as a grad instructor would count. I don't know about you, but my graduate instructorships were all technically half-time and were a lot closer to third- or quarter-time. Compared to what my actual full-time job is like, and depending on the semester.
I thought that the five-year thing was crazy, too. I've been VAPping for (what feels like) a long time, but I don't have five years full-time teaching experience yet.
You see that "earned degree" stuff in ads pretty regularly. I'm not sure what to make of it; you wouldn't think you'd need to be specific that an honorary degree doesn't qualify a person for a college-level teaching position. And I guess I thought that honorary doctorates were not normally literal Ph.D.s at all. For example, Bill Cosby has a bunch of honorary doctorates, but almost all of them are "Doctor of Humane Letters." And I have trouble believing that anyone accomplished enough to have been awarded an honorary degree would apply for a 4-4 non-tenure track one-year position at UNT.
My best guess is that it's used as a verb, not an adjective. I suspect that it means that you have to have earned your degree before you start. Same as saying, "degree in hand" or whatever. Although I would say that this interpretation is grammatically underdetermined.
I think second guessing ads is in general relatively fruitless.
I sort of agree, but it's still fun to speculate/make fun. And this seems like an awful lot to ask for in a 1-year position.
- January 30, 2012 at 10:10 AM
- Christopher Hitchcock said...
Zombie said:
I like the part about "earned PhD" too.
I got my PhD on a fielding error.
- January 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM
IIRC, UNT has a pretty good music department, especially jazz. I assume this makes for a pretty good music scene in Denton. (Didn't Norah Jones go to UNT briefly?)
- January 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I think "earned" is just an awkward way of saying they won't consider ABDs.
- January 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Can I second Filosofer's bewilderment regarding the job ad for St. Mary's University (TX)?
"AOS: Early Modern Philosophy (Hobbes to Kant). AOC: Open, though the department has needs in the History of Philosophy, Late Modern Philosophy, and Ethics. A working familiarity with the critical realism of Bernard Lonergan is essential for participation in the department's mission."
[Posted on Chronicle of Higher Ed (http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000713919-01)]
Are we taking crazy pills?
- January 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Denton also has a famous death metal scene - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IsXKMkDAMQ
- January 30, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Anyone have any insight about why new job postings for positions already listed as having made offer, invited for interviews, etc. Even if those particular candidates didn't work out, surely they have a plethora of applicants on hand to draw from.
The positions of interest are University of Denver and two University of Utah Valley positions. Strangely, they all re-list just about same time that there is a significant update on Phylo.
I don't want to waste time applying for places if they're just trying to get some required data for affirmative action or whatever it is.
- January 31, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Not sure about the UD job, but I emailed the chair of Utah Valley and he confirmed that the ads were for the job for which I had already applied. He said HR was a bit behind regarding placement of the ad.
- January 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM
I seem to recall that Lonergan (whose work I am woefully ignorant of) is a big deal in some Catholic circles. The ad. may not be so bizzare w/respect to a given constituency.
- February 1, 2012 at 5:24 AM
Yeah, but the Utah ads just published were completely different from those published earlier. AOCs were omitted from at least one of them, which would have made all the different as to whether or not I applied. Someone dropped the ball on this one.
- February 1, 2012 at 10:03 AM
St. Mary's was hiring someone last year (or maybe the year before) in medieval and it listed the same requirement for a familiarity with Lonergan. It seems to be an institutionalized requirement. I wonder how stringently that requirement is kept.
There is an interesting issue lurking in the background of how to advance a given thinker's approach. Institutionalizing it is one way. I remember talking to a couple of Continental folks who were convinced of the intrinsic superiority of Jaspers over Heidegger. When accounting for the far more extensive research into the latter over the former, the response was a shrug with 'his students were better at getting jobs and thus getting him into the curriculum.' Doubtless that would not satisfy all - but it, along with this Lonergan requirement and other such mandates - make me think about the practice of institutionalizing different approaches to philosophy in order to propagate it. There's an interesting question here of whether/how to institutionalize philosophy, which all of us trying to get jobs at universities seem to be in some sense committed to.
- February 1, 2012 at 10:42 AM
@anon 10:42 I would read any ad stipulating knowledge of Lonergan to mean, "you'd better be Catholic because we don't want atheists stirring up shit in our department."
I suspect it's akin to asking someone if they're a friend of Bill.
- February 1, 2012 at 3:27 PM
I would read any ad stipulating knowledge of Lonergan to mean, "you'd better be Catholic because we don't want atheists stirring up shit in our department."
That's nonsense. I'm a Catholic and know nothing about Lonergan, and would have no shot at getting a job in such a department. And even if it's true that in fact those who know Lonergan are overwhelmingly Catholic, that's not the point of the criterion; they'd consider non-Catholics who had the expertise, too.
- February 1, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Big D: Thank -God-. I was going to be very upset if nobody linked to that in 27 comments.
The song's sentiments seem very appropriate to this blog, come to think of it.
- February 2, 2012 at 7:20 AM
I found one that's even worse. You're required to submit:
"student evaluations from the last year (at least six classes, an even mix of graduate and undergraduate)"
That means they expect you to have taught at least three undergraduate courses and at least three graduate courses IN THE PAST YEAR. How many people even at R1 institutions end up with three graduate courses in a year. It's usually one, sometimes two if you're lucky. Maybe if you only teach grad courses.
What kind of person with a job like that would be eager to move to a small Catholic school with a 4/4 teaching load that as far as I can tell has no graduate program in philosophy at all? I'd probably jump at a job like that, but I'm not sure people who can provide what they ask for would.
- February 4, 2012 at 6:37 AM
Sooo....where's the thread where we talk about how long we wait before leaving the profession? Two years? Three? Four? I'm at the end of my rope here.
- February 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM
Dear philosophy departments:
If you would like a job candidate to book their own travel for a flyout, please tell her so explicitly. Often we're expecting to be contacted regarding travel, and the last-minute scramble to book flights isn't fun.
Thank you,
job seeker
- February 7, 2012 at 3:19 AM
There's a new one on higher ed jobs from Bemidji State U, which is a 3/3, with advising, research expectations, and departmental service--and it's listed as an ADJUNCT position.
- February 7, 2012 at 4:31 AM


text:
First Thursday Book Group of Greene Co. Library
From Wiki
Article in Book Groups
This adult group meets on the first Thursday of every month at 7 pm in the meeting room of the Greene County Library. We pick the books we'll read every six months or so, by voting on member's suggestions. We read a combination of fiction and non-fiction. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please call 434-985-5227 for more information.
- Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert (Nov. 6)
- A Judgment In Stone by Ruth Rendell (Dec. 4)
- The Book Thief by Marcus Zusak (Jan 8, due to holiday)
- Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston (March 5, 2009)
- Washington Square by Henry James (April 2, 2009)
- Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout (May 7, 2009)
- The Places In Between by Rory Stewart (June 4, 2009)
- When We Were Orphans by Kazuo Ishiguro (July 2, 2009)


text:
Wear your heart on your nails! Rock Rainbow Nails and look fierce as hell. Pride Nail Art is the perfect finishing touch for Pride Month or anytime you want to nail the right look for supporting LGTBQ rights!
NailSnaps ultra-thin, salon-quality nail wraps are easy to apply. No mess. No toxicity. No dry time. Glossy and fab right out of the box.
Each set includes:
- 20 salon-quality nail wraps - of various sizing for great fit & flexibility. Use the extras as accent nails, or share with your bestie.
- Mini nail file - so you can place the self-adhesive wraps and file off the excess.
- Easy-to-follow instructions - you'll be done in minutes! See: How To Apply Nail Wraps
NailSnaps, easy nails, nail polish stickers, nail vinyls, nail wraps, nail decals, cute nail designs, nail art pics, nail ideas, pretty nails, nails instagram, nail art, hollywood nails, happy nails, pretty nails, cute nails, perfect nails, diva nails, easy nail designs, beautiful nails, cool nail designs, art nails, creative nailsDesigned by Proceeds2ACLU
FREE Shipping + 100% Happiness Guarantee.
NailSnaps customers enjoy FREE shipping (in the US) and a 100% happiness guarantee because we want you to love and enjoy your NailSnaps! If you are not satisfied with your NailSnaps purchase, you may return most items for a full refund within 90 days of purchase.
For custom NailSnaps, be sure to follow the creation guidelines in the NailSnaps mobile app and check out our tips for creating nail designs so your custom wraps are as fun to wear as they are to create.
The 100% Happiness Guarantee does not cover ordinary wear and tear or damage caused by improper application or use so be sure to apply your NailSnaps using our easy nail wrap application instructions.
Shipping Times
Domestic orders within the USA ship direct to your door with love via USPS Ground Shipping within 5 -7 business days. International orders are charged a flat $5.50 and arrive within 17 business days.


text:
Lovely GB:-) Truly if we listen to ourselves,our souls,life becomes so beautiful and different. If we keep on listening to all the noise around,we get noisy too,sometimes mindlessly. Keep writing more peoms....ReplyDelete
Beautiful...I guess sometimes Silence kills more than words...ReplyDelete
Our minds can't be silent but our souls can be, Excellent !ReplyDelete
This is an excellent poem! I'm trying to give it as much attention as it deserves but somehow I'm crunched between work and pleasure. I cannot express how beautiful this piece is; the line "and then settles in virtues" is just so apt. I'd love to know more about your thoughts as you wrote this out and I promise to come back to read some more.ReplyDelete
PS: Sounds of Silence is an excellent album by Simon and Garfunkel with the title song being sounds of silence. An excerpt from the lyrics is:
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
@Sudeshna - agree - we get so noisy at times, that stop listening to the true voice of reality check which get burried deep within.ReplyDelete
@Saru -yea the classic silent treament hits harder than loud screams.
@Lonely Planet - We still dont know if death, rather post death there is silence or noise.
@Richi Thank you for the kind words. Guess what, this blog is available online 24/7 ! :-) So please read when you get time and peace of mind.
Yes, I have S&G in my collection. Though my favorite is Scarborough Fair.
I know I love the song! esp the music for the bit which goes with the lyrics 'Rosemary and Thyme'...they have a limited number of songs due to their short time together but each of those are beautiful ones.ReplyDelete
If you're interested check out 'I'm a rock'. I think it's a fantastic one!
Will drop by again :)
the silence truly helps one introspect...beautiful silent poem :)ReplyDeleteReplies
@Karan - appreciate it.Delete


text:
MEREDITH GRAN and several friends sign THIS Thursday July 15th from 7pm – 9pm at Secret Headquarters.
Meredith Gran's OCTOPUS PIE debuted in 2007 and quickly developed a large fan base, making it one of the most popular comics on the Internet. The webcomic follows the adventures of nerdy and acerbic Eve Ning, who lives with her long-lost childhood friend (and perpetual happy stoner), Hanna, in Brooklyn. Initially published three times a week, and now posted in collected "episodes," the stories and world of OCTOPUS PIE have developed over hundreds of strips. Now the first two years of the comic are collected in the beautiful Villard trade paperback OCTOPUS PIE: There Are No Stars In Brooklyn.
In the twilight zone between college and the adult world lies the sardonic, witty, maddening and sometimes melancholy terrain that Gran's addictive comic OCTOPUS PIE maps with devastating, drop-dead-funny accuracy. Crazed childhood rivals, art world hipsters, Eve's meddlesome mom, and boyfriends past and present crowd their lives. These alternately hilarious and thoughtful vignettes of twenty-something life will ring true to any reader, and sharp situational humor and crazy characters give OCTOPUS PIE a unique charm that's hard to resist.
A graduate of the School of Visual Arts, Gran is influenced by her experiences in Brooklyn, where she lived until she moved to Portland, Oregon (in a neighborhood that reminds her of her old home). She's also made a name for herself within the webcomics community, organizing the first-ever webcomics convention of its kind, Webcomics Weekend in New England. The second annual convention takes place this November.
Join your favorite webcartoonists – including LA locals and visitors from afar – for a night of fun on Sunset Boulevard!
Featuring appearances by:
Jorge Cham (Piled Higher and Deeper)
Meredith Gran (Octopus Pie)
Dave Kellett (Sheldon)
David Malki (Wondermark)
R. Stevens (Diesel Sweeties)
Zach Weiner (Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)
Come for the fine drinks and stay for the even finer conversation! Get things signed! Make startling confessions!
This Thursday night at Secret Headquarters (3817 W Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90026)


text:
Search results for 'vintage french style oak linen upholstered dining chair leather back armchair in rustic grey'
Your search returns no results.
Maximum words count is 10. In your search query was cut next part: armchair in rustic grey.
*Free shipping is available in the mainland United Kingdom. Shipping surcharge applies to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Read more on shipping FAQs or 30 day return & exchange policy.
Not shopping from the UK? Please visit our USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and Global stores according to your country (product selection varies by country).
Your search returns no results.
Maximum words count is 10. In your search query was cut next part: armchair in rustic grey.
Homary is a specialized platform for home improvement, décor, home furnishings and more with customers all around the world since 2012.
By bringing high-quality products with exclusive designs, timeless style and surprising prices from worldwide recognized top manufacturers directly to your door, we make sure that you enjoy an unforgettable shopping experience and better living environment at home.
Email us: email@example.com
We will reply you within 24 hours in working days.
Call us: +44 20 3289 9609 (UK)
24-hour GMT+8 Monday through Saturday
Pingsha International Plaza R333, Pingsha
Baiyun District, Guangzhou
Guangdong Province, P.R.China


text:
Bērziņš, Kalniņš, Ozoliņš – these are what I call the "big three". They are the most common Latvian surnames. With these names more than any others it is imperative that you know where your ancestor was from.
But what do these names mean?
All three are in a diminutive form, but for surnames, this can also mean that they are singular forms referring to an area – plurals Bērziņi, Kalniņi, Ozoliņi – and therefore referring to people who live in a certain place.
How then are these names popular in almost every region of Latvia? They are topographical in nature – "bērzs" means "birch tree", "kalns" means "hill" and "ozols" means "oak tree". Therefore Bērziņš would mean "one who lives among the birch trees", Kalniņš would mean "one who lives among the hills" and Ozoliņš would mean "one who lives among the oak trees".
Similar surnames also exist in non-diminutive forms – Bērzs, Kalns and Ozols – but only Ozols has the same popularity as its diminutive form.
The Latvian Institute supplies a list of the most common Latvian names (first names and surnames) in 2005. While popular first names change over time, my experiences with late 19th century and early 20th century surnames tells me that the surname list is also probably accurate in a general historical context as well.
The surnames, and their English meanings:
- Bērziņš (one who lives among the birch trees)
- Kalniņš (one who lives among the hills)
- Ozoliņš (one who lives among the oak trees)
- Jansons (Germanic borrowing – "son of John")
- Ozols (oak tree)
- Liepiņš (one who lives among the linden trees)
- Krūmiņš (one who lives among the bushes)
- Balodis (pigeon/dove)
- Eglītis (one who lives among the fir trees)
- Zariņš (one who lives among the branches)
- Pētersons (Germanic borrowing – "son of Peter")
- Vītols (willow)
- Kļaviņš (one who lives among the maple trees)
- Kārkliņš (diminutive of osier/sallow, a type of bird)
- Vanags (hawk)
My own surname, Celmiņš – or Celmiņa, the feminine form – while not being in the top 15 is not an uncommon name, and fits this same pattern, and would translate as "one who lives among the tree stumps".
Do you have a surname that ends in -iņš (often anglicized "ins", "in" or "insh")? Do you know what it means?


text:
Two Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies accused of kicking and punching a handcuffed inmate, then filing false reports about the altercation at Men's Central Jail, were indicted on federal civil rights charges in connection with an ongoing inmate abuse investigation.
The deputies -- Joey Aguiar, 26, and Mariano Ramirez, 38 -- are accused of illegally using force against an inmate and then engaging in a cover-up. That cover-up involved bogus reports that led to false prosecution against the victim, according to federal investigators.
Former inmate Brett Philips told KPCC Radio Friday how in 2009, he survived a scuffle with deputies at Men's Central Jail.
"I had stitches in my head. My lower back was hurting, I had, I was just sore all over," Philips said. "I still got the scars on my wrists from like the handcuffs were so tight."
The federal grand jury indictment was handed down Thursday as the Federal Bureau of Investigation continues its probe into allegations of inmate abuse involving the LA County Sheriff's Department.
"Feds was the ones that told me that police was gonna try to charge me with assault on a deputy," Philips said.
Philips was serving seven months at Mens Central Jail for a parole violation.
"That's something that we've seen before where the inmates are sort of twice victimized. Once they're beaten and then second, then they're accused of having absolutely been the aggressors. That's simply not the truth," ACLU Legal Director Peter Eliasberg said.
- Read: Sheriff to Step Down
Last month, 18 current and former deputies were indicted after a two-year federal investigation into corruption and inmate abuse.
In the new indictment, Aguiar and Ramirez are accused of beating a handcuffed inmate February 2009 who also was secured with a "waist chain" restraint. The deputies allegedly kicked and punched the inmate, used pepper spray on him and struck him with a flashlight.
"I never see his hands trying to protect himself. He just was saying stop please, stop," jail chaplain Paulino Juarez said.
The deputies then followed up with false reports to cover up the abuse, according to the indictment. Based on those reports, the case was referred to Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.
"Each false report count carries a maximum statutory term of imprisonment of twenty years," Deputy US Attorney Maggie Carter said.
Both men are charged with conspiring to violate civil rights and with deprivation of rights under color of law that caused bodily injury. Aguiar faces an additional count of falsification of records because he allegedly reported that the inmate "viciously kicked his legs at deputies."
One of the deputies was relieved of duty because of "an unrelated incident," according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
"The abuse of authority will not be tolerated. As of today, they are both relieved of duty," Capt. Mike Parker said Friday.
Aguiar and Ramirez are due in court March 6.
The other 18 deputies charged in the FBI investigation pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and other charges. They are scheduled to trial later this year.


text: ISO 9001 Quality Management An ISO 9001 quality management system will help you to continually monitor and manage quality across your entire organization. As the world's most widely recognized quality management standard, it outlines ways to achieve, as well as benchmark, consistent performance and service. Find out more about ISO 9001 certification