Climate Change Denial: Why?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you pthena.

The coding. *sigh* I'm sure you've read my other posts, so you know how and why I'm so suspicious. A small part of that is curiosity (I really like coding from time to time) but the larger part is mistrust. The truth is, I probably wouldn't have time to dig through it if I had it. Doesn't stop me from wanting to see it, though, just to verify they aren't 'hiding something.' (That's the conspiracist redneck talking.)

More than likely they're talking about using different modules to provide different values to sum together for the final output. That would make it easier to substitute algorithms for different forcings and add in additional forcings. If someone already has one of those algorithms written it wouldn't make sense to not use it, even if it needed tweaking.

Of course, the outputs can drive inputs as well, using a matrix for the output.

The heat island... that was the phrase I picked up on too, not the exact phrase 'heat island.' I don't have the full text pulled up at the moment (I'm on my tablet) but memory tells me the way it was mentioned seemed to imply an intention to include it later. I can't fathom mentioning it as an omission and not intending to include it later... that would be like admitting the whole thing was incomplete and wrong, would it not?

You just bring that pointy stick wherever you like. As long as the conversation is civil and pleasant, I can handle any disagreement we have without being disagreeable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nenothtu

I know the area of which you speak. I always enjoyed driving I-81 through that area, mainly for the scenery. Green as far as the eye could see.

I remember more snow here when I was younger, but not really colder temperatures. Our temperatures have recently been record-breaking during the winter. The summer weather has changed too. It doesn't get quite as hot as it used to, but it also stays hot longer. I wouldn't notice growth changes much; this mountain dirt has always been capable of growing a car if you dropped a spark plug in the wrong place,

But what made me respond was your description of Mother Nature. You're absolutely right about her, and maybe that's why so many are so afraid... they know they can't control her for long, and they're just afraid of anything they can't control.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I grew up just on the other side of Clinch mountain from I-81. Clinch is a big chunk of green-covered, miles-long, rock to the west as you scoot past Abingdon, rising above the Holston River. Now I'm a bit farther west than even that, and the landscape is different. I-81 west to the Clinch River is in the "Appalachian Ridge and Valley Region", but west of Clinch where I am now is the Cumberland Plateau, where you have to lie flat on your back at high noon to see the sun. The river divides the two like a wall divides rooms in a house - it's just that sudden a change.

I can recall splitting wood as a teenager in temperatures of 20 below, and having to take off my jacket because the work was heating me up and not a breath of wind was stirring, so it seemed warmer than it was - but it didn't STAY that cold for long enough periods of time to freeze the river over like it did when the other old guy was a kid. Now, if it gets down to 10 or 15 degrees ABOVE zero, folks freak out.

I work on top of a mountain that used to be 200 feet higher before they removed the top of it to get coal out of the ground the easy way. Now, after the reclamation, the biggest employer in the county sits there, and all of the coal operations are gone. There were mines everywhere when I was a kid, now there are, I think, 3 in the entire region. Unemployment is through the roof, sitting at around 3 times the national average, thanks to the shutting down of the mines. Not everyone worked in them, but they were the drivers of the local economy, they were what brought money into the area to be passed around. Someone took our economy away, and neglected to replace it with anything else.

It's not all roses. There are always trade-offs. In a place called Vansant, there is a coke oven operation right next to one of the remaining mines. The Levisa River (or "Louisa", depending on how far north one comes from) runs past it, and I've been warned not to eat the fish out of that river from the coke ovens on down stream. It probably doesn't matter that much if you can't afford fishing equipment because someone has wrecked the economy.

The mountain top removal reclamation, on the other hand, has gone great. That's where I see most of the elk.

Mother nature is like any good mother - she will spank you if you fight her too hard. The harder you fight, the harder she spanks, and if you fight hard enough, she'll beat you completely to death.

There are much better ways to get along than fighting.

The Marines have a saying - "adapt and overcome" there's a reason "adapt" comes first in that equation. One cannot overcome until he first adapts to the situation at hand as it is, rather than as he wishes it was.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

1st off, a nub here
2nd, will be unable to open my mind and heart just enough to answering such a ? without being either amazingly creative, smug, or arrogant. None of which I possess in any large amount.

Most of us don't seek a safe space when called a "denier". The tone that is used is often offensive. Added to the offensiveness was the rule change made in naming this "calamity".

The original naming was "Man Made Global Warming"(in my time during the 70s it was New Ice Age) This was debatable to our way of thinking.
Nature intervened(record cold), it became apparent this name just wasn't going to stick to the wall. The name changed to "Climate Change" we are in agreement with, cyclical climate change. The "Man Made" is no longer listed in the title, and that is what is debatable. (Since they do not debate, it's called denied)

A leader to a headline will always read "Denier"(as yours) Makes us sound ill informed kooks. That's offensive. In reality we have read, many of us extensively both sides to form opinions. Each side has the fringes, there will always be those who believe the fringe. I toss fringes.
We believe change is happening, do not agree on why.

96% Did NOT Check Man Made...............

a reply to: TheRedneck

If and when the day comes that models can predict accurately short-term phenomena and have attained enough confidence in their long-term accuracy to deem them correct, if they show that moderate increases in carbon dioxide levels have major implications on the ecology, then, and only then, will I agree to political action based on the science. Should that day come, I will probably stand on the front line of the battle, developing new ways to power our society safely and new ways to minimalize/reverse any damage.

But that day is not today, and not tomorrow until that evil link between politics and scientific research is severed, dead, and gone from memory.

I dissent. May scientific research never ever be disconnected from politics! Basic human rights are a political concept after all, not a scientific imperative. Further on, every human being has at least some form of aganda in mind which is constantly involved with decisions regarding our deliberate acts. And sadly, most of them quite literally surround the golden calf like a hungry pack of hyenas. And yet it's all just human, to simply deny any expressions of political consciousness in science/ art/ (enter your sphere of action here) would be inhumane by definition.
Plain material- or consumerism already infested the whole scientific community sufficiently. Big Pharma is just the prominent example, universities may still offer some sacret space for free studies. If they still do so.

Cutting all links between various forms of policies and science in general would probably result in some form of clean orwellian horrorscenario, written by a few algos with strict no-policy-protocol.
I'd rather suggest to simply set this former glory of invention free for good and raise the overall quality to dump the big pile of propaganda. No monetary pressure, free quality checks/ independent peer to peer reviews, open source access for all papers with discussion boards open for everyone to participate. Science could be a great tool to explore inner and outer space - together, not only wallets - everyone for his own. And I don't blaim scientists for playing the gold defecating mule in this drama of social infancy, we all do. At least to some degree.

It's the economy, stupid! Yes but no. There's way more to this, we're about to enter the highly suspicious realms of philosophy via the "Dialectics of Enlightenment" during the next episode, I guess. Buzzy added some great ideas as well and I'd go a similar route, only a few steps further.

But before I start to add my take on possible solutions to this dilemma, let me recruit you for the first line in this fight, with good old science and a friendly reminder:

[62]... Over the twentieth century, anthropogenic forcings cause a warming trend of 0.5 ± 0.15 K /century. The trend due to greenhouse gases is 0.9 ± 0.24 K/century, while the remaining anthropogenic factors cool at a rate of 0.4 ± 0.26 K/century. The uncertainty in the total anthropogenic warming trend is less than the uncertainties in the individual trends, as they are correlated with one another; see below. Over the century, natural forcings contribute little to the observed trend. Our analysis considers only uncertainty in the amplitude of the simulated response and neglects uncertainty in the time dependence of the forcing and in the spatial patterns of response, as well as neglecting uncertainties in the observations. However, our best estimates are consistent with the observations. Furthermore, in a single ensemble of simulations forced with both natural and anthropogenic forcings, changes in simulated near-surface temperature are consistent with those observed [Stott et al., 2000], suggesting that those uncertainties may not be too great.
...
[63]During the first half of the century, greenhouse gases and natural forcings cause warming trends of
0.2 –0.3 K/ century, while other anthropogenic factors produce negligible cooling trends (Figure 10). Over the last half of the century, greenhouse gases warm the climate at a rate of 1.7 ± 0.43 K /century, with natural forcings (largely volcanic aerosol) and other anthropogenic factors (mainly the indirect effect of sulphate aerosols) both causing an estimated cooling trend of
0.3 ± 0.2 K/century. Thus, since 1947, changes in aerosol concentrations (anthropogenic and natural) have offset about a third of the greenhouse gas warming.

5. Detection and Attribution of Observed Temperature Changes

The way I see it we can call ourselves lucky as eff, the greenhouse gas contributions nearly tenfolded during the last century. Guys, you wanna step it up in the next one? Tenfolded... alarmism anybody? I hope so, you're not sitting at the edge of your fricken seat by now? What exactly is it then, there are other studies/ perspective to be heard first? Jaja ok, pants down now! C'mon! What is it then?

How could we possibly sit on more evidence? They've simulated the climate for the whole 20th century, which turned out to be consistent with the observed climate data. Did they not? That's the only way to deliver a holistic hypothesis - plus long term report - regarding the consequences of this industrialisation I could think of. Also, they've included all significant factors of natural/ human forcings and they've even added precisely those estimates regarding our footprint you've asked for. There, you've got it all, with sugar and cherry on the pie.

I'll take the whip then for now as I've had a second and a third glance myself to realize what all this means. Which is fine, it's still a gubbermint sponsor and all that.
As long as you don't have anything specific on your mind now... let's put it aside, leave it there for a while and find something equally excellent to drew conclusions from. Why not? Heck. I can wait a tad longer before I'll assign you to your new devision of climategate SJW's and launch the official order not to obey. Ever.

Deal? Man... it's a hilarious conversation by now, really. I'm already looking forward to the response this train of thoughts might provoke but I need some shuteye first. AT'S the place to be at, innit?

a reply to: nenothtu

Brilliant as ever. So glad you stopped in!

It fascinates me how the wildlife population ebbs and flows with the climate. Here in this deciduous forest where I live, things have been greener and greener and it's harder to keep the brush away. My mom and I both work like fiends to have pleasant yards - mine is generally much more "au naturel", but liveable - there are now margins around the perimeter that have been allowed to go wild - and they make formidable hedge-rows and privacy screens and living stockades.

We have deer wandering through pretty regularly, up here by the river it's different than just 10 miles south of here - entirely different 'climate' and 'soil', although the seasons in general are shared, of course.

Anyway - thanks again, neno - glad you caught mention of the thread!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You brought your pointy stick.

There is as much chance of completely removing political opinion from science as there is of removing religious opinion from politics: none. Both arenas are operated by people, and people have individual opinions on both subjects. I may have seemed to indicate a desire for absolute immunity from political opinion, but that was not my intent.

I draw a line between politics and political opinion, just as I do between religion and religious opinion. That line is the line between individual belief and systemic action. There is a lot of news here surrounding Roy Moore, for instance, a judge once condemned for having a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in his courtroom next to other historic legal documents. I supported his right to hang those documents as an acceptable and reasonable expression of his religious belief. I would have just as quickly condemned him and called for his removal had there been any indication he was using that expression in his judgements.

The lead physicist on my most recent project brought up politics one day when we were assembling a solar panel frame. We had a good long discussion on the subject. But had he mentioned he was conducting the experiment solely to prove something to be used for a political agenda, I would have undoubtedly walked off the project on the spot.

In both the above examples, I was presented a personal opinion on a subject unrelated to the professional duties of the person concerned. In both extensions, I proposed actions that were inconsistent with the professional duties of the person concerned. The former was irrelevant; the latter was simply wrong. The latter is also the point of my previous rants against any link between science and politics.

In this very political cycle, we have seen some of the most divisive rhetoric I can remember. Science cannot be divisive; it only works via peer review and replication of results. Scientists (and engineers) must keep an open mind when analyzing the results and implications, else they run an extreme risk of misinterpretation and/or error in our conclusions. We change our minds regularly to include new data or new ideas. Politicians run extreme professional risk when changing position on issues, because they can easily be labeled a 'flip-flopper' and disgrace in the eyes of their constituents.

Engineering, while detail oriented, is not detail-specific. Engineers typically get assigned a project in the very broadest terms. Their job is to make that project real, to make it work. One engineer may use an analog circuit; another may use a digital logic design; still another may use a microcontroller. As long as the project successfully works, they have succeeded. Political ideas are scrutinized for every minute detail, and deviations are often seen as atrocious failures to their constituency. Take the moon landing, for example. The engineers had one task: land a manned spacecraft on the moon. They did it. A similar political task would be something like the ACA. It had one task: provide health care for all. But it had many details specified as well... don't change this, make sure we change that, don't word the bill that way, make sure certain people are on this committee... the list of details where 300 million opinions were expressed and weighed is endless.

Had the moon shot been designed thus way, it would still be sitting on the launch pad, rebuilt for the 463rd time, with former incarnations acting as landmarks across the globe where they crashed back to Earth or floating around the Keiper Belt (sp?).

Politics and military are two more areas which should never have been linked. During WWII, once the decision to go to war was made politically, the military took over. We won the war. In every war since Vietnam, the politicians stayed in control after declaring war, and they became drawn out exercises in frustration. Our latest such fiasco is the Middle East. We have managed to destabilize the area, create new and more dangerous forces than before, and extend both the length of the conflict and the number of lives lost on both sides.

There are simply some things which should never, ever be mixed. Politics and religion, politics and military, religion and science, and especially politics and science. The results have never been positive.

Now it's your time to help me: I cannot access the paper through your link, and I am curious as to which greenhouses gases have seen a tenfold increase in the last century?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are simply some things which should never, ever be mixed. Politics and religion, politics and military, religion and science, and especially politics and science. The results have never been positive.

Hear, hear.

Brilliant post. The thing that most troubles me is people who assault science and research as being some sort of psyops, and scientists as tools. I just don't think that's true. Yes, some research is funded by ill-intentioned malefactors - skewing results or using only certain results. But true science doesn't do that. My graduate education included research methods and scientific/peer-review methodology and notation. So I am able to read and understand research study results.

But it also taught me how people intentionally misconstrue things, use faulty data, manipulate what data is out there, and try to connect dots that are only connectable if one has a vivid imagination. Ah well. This place never ceases to surprise me....the way wires get crossed and declarations get made based on nothing but jejune or malicious theories.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's not a different climate...

I agree with Neo that I can't see warming as a bad thing. As a scientist I have to look at what I can see, not models that continue to be off. Ultimately, NASA recently released an article that all this co2 has actually been GOOD for the planet:

Source: Nasa

April 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth—nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect.

So as we warm, and as co2 increases, the earth is actually getting HEALTHIER.

Full paper is behind a Pay Wall which I no longer have access to.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yes, sir, it is.

My own yard is a different micro-climate than my mother's yard. The flora and fauna are different. The soil types are different. The ecosystems have many, many similarities, but they are still different in notable ways.

I can grow things that she can not - and vice versa. As far as it all being in Zone 5, you are technically correct. But any farmer or grower can tell you that there are regional differences. Why is Iowa corn and Kansas wheat and soybeans? Kansas can grow corn, too, and does. Kansas also has the Flint Hills - both my area the Loess Hills and the Flint Hills are extraordinary micro-climate areas. But Iowa and Nebraska get superior results with corn. Because different. And some of that has to do with the jet-stream - my home in the center of the country is right along the jet stream.

We get different weather than neno or Redneck do. But thanks for adding your thoughts.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't think we need lower co2 levels. We've actually been in a co2 drought since the last ice age. See my link above from NASA. co2 is doing great for the environment right now.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Microclimate (one word) is not the same as Climate, it may contain the word climate but it does not mean the same thing from a scientific perspective. You are also merging the meanings of Ecosystem and Microclimate. Microclimate has nothing to do with soil or plants and animals. For example, if your yard is only a few miles from your mothers, unless there is a mountain range between you, you are part of the same microclimate. You may have different ecosystems caused by varying factors, but you undoubtedly have the same weather patterns. I understand what you meant now though. Thanks for clarifying. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand people who want to know what they are talking about but in reality don't.

Edit: No comment on the paper?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Some are tools, and maybe it's always been that way. But it seems there are a lot more of those tools around lately and they're getting far too much press.

Good examples:

Michio Kaku is absolutely brilliant. The man is a literal genius. But he's intellectually dishonest. I have caught him in so many intentional lies and exaggerations in documentaries to be unable to trust anything he says. Neil Degrasse Tyson is also brilliant and a genius. But he's not (so far as I know) dishonest in the least. He simplifies, yes, since his purpose is to help educate the uneducated masses, but he tries to bring out as many details as possible. I hold him in high esteem.

Two who make me want to puke: AL Gore and Morgan Freeman. Both try to present themselves as some sort of populist scientist, and both are unable to logically think their way out of a brown paper bag. Both represent a threat to public perception of science. Both are making a lot of money doing it.

I could go on, but that rant monster is getting too close to the surface.

TheRedneck

a reply to: raymundoko

I am not going to disagree with you. Historical evidence also shows that human populations expand during warmer periods and contract during colder. A simple look at the planet's growth band tells me that the wider it is, the more food we will be able to grow and the less energy we will need per capita.

Humans are designed for warmer climates. Our responses to cold are inefficient and energy-intensive: capillary constriction (restricting blood flow to extremities, endangering them), increased energy usage, and finally shivering (involuntary emergency muscular action to maximize energy usage). If we pass out from cold, our energy usage stops and we die. Our response to heat is capillary expansion (more blood flow to extremities, not less), sweating (highly effective evaporational cooling), and reduced energy usage. If we pass out from heat, the reduction in energy usage actually increases our possibility of survival.

I really don't see a downside to a little more carbon dioxide myself.

TheRedneck

a reply to: raymundoko

From the NASA article you cited:

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Pot meet kettle.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not as common as you would like to portray...No, one of the problems is that a lot of what is purported to be science is in fact, religion. It is the mixing of science and religion in regards to the scientific paradigms that is most worrisome..

The fact, that people are allowed to claim religion as science, because SCIENCE...lol...

AGW is a religion.. it is NOT science. In many ways and instances, it doesn't even qualify as religion as it is falsifiable as fraud...

Jaden

a reply to: jrod

Yet again you misunderstand what you read. Don't you get it? Yes, co2 is limited on how much it can benefit plants. Do you know what that limit is? Apparently you don't. Do you know the time scale they are referring to? Apparently you don't. You should research that as it appears someone else showing you something falls on deaf ears. You are the kind of person who has to learn something for yourself in order to retain the knowledge.

You also skipped the very next line in your quote. Why?

While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models

Do you understand the significance of that statement?

You continue to show yourself lacking jrod, as usual.

CO2 fertilization effect

That paper clearly shows that plants produce the most, without diminishing effects, around:

Photosynthetic rates: up to 660
Respiration: up to 640
Partitioning: up to 660
Growth rates: up to 660
Yield: 660, by leaps and bounds better than pre-industrial levels of 270-330
Seed yield: 660 again

Are you seeing the trend? We need more co2 still...

You are being easily confused by politicized statements.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

No matter how you wish to spin it up no one denies that climate changes. We deny that it is driven by people or farting cows or hair spray or refrigerant. The people who buy into human caused climate change like some kind of religion have been touting the "don't believe in climate change" with the knowledge that if you say it enough times even though it is inaccurate people will begin to believe the lie instead.

a reply to: tmeister182

We can measure co2 caused by humans in the atmosphere, specifically that caused by burning fossil fuels. It has a unique isotope. It makes up about 5% of the total co2 increase. Even that small amount can affect temperature at our current levels of co2. No scientist would disagree with that statement.

a reply to: jrod

Paragraph 1:

We do not know what, if any, effect Global Warming will have on the overall ecology. If you look back a few posts, there are three (or is it four?) reports by scientists, engineers, and scienticifally-minded individuals relating observations that thus far indicate positive ecological results.

There are no credible reports of global sea level rise.

We do not know what the ecological impacts of melting glaciers will be. Previous hysterical reports of poiar bear extinction, for example, we're found to be completely unfounded.

Previous predictions of severe weather increases caused by Global Warming have been shown false.

Paragraph 2:

“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” In mathematical terms, the derivative of the growth vector will approach stabilization in an exponential curve, based on the new variables. In plain English, "How fast the plants grow will not continue to change after a time."

It doesn't means the plants will stop growing faster than they do today; it means they will keep growing at the faster rate instead of continuing to increase their growth rate.

Thank you for pointing out another perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

TheRedneck