Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 Next
Comments 14551 to 14600:
-
nigelj at 08:08 AM on 8 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
One of the accusations is that EPA environmental regulations kill jobs. Not according to this research.
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 8 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
The EPA is indeed under vicious attack and regulatory capture, and it highlights the fundamental tension between capitalism and the environment. Capitalist free maket competition is a great thing and economically efficient, but has the well known negative side effect of environmental damage as costs are transfered to third parties, future generations, or swept under the carpet to fester.
Relying on the goodwill of the leaders of industry to do the right thing regarding the environment and other matters has a poor history, as with some individuals the profit motive coincides with sociopathic tendencies, short term thinking and disregard for the well being of anyone outside their immediate inner circle of people. But then all of us are genetically wired to favour our immediate group, according to scientific research although. this varies form individual to inndividual. As below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism
But anyway the EPA was established to be a strong body independent of business and government capable of counter acting the tendency of free markets and rogue leaders of industry to pillage and destroy the environment. It balances economic and environmental concerns. It ensures the public good is protected. If it abuses its power, there are already sufficient checks and balances.
The attack on the current EPA is clearly is a full scale attack by corporate vested interests and small government ideologues. They might acquire slightly more material wealth, or so they think, but the net result is the quality of life of the overwhelming majority of people is seriously downgraded.
-
nigelj at 07:30 AM on 8 May 2018Global warming will depress economic growth in Trump country
Yes climate change will hurt red states and Trumps supporters more, however the blue collar workers won't be able to work it out, and are under his spell because Trump knows how to play them, and Trumps more astute business supporters dont care, because they are wealthy enough to escape the problems, or so they believe. But climate change will ultimately make everyone poorer than they would have been, because it degrades the wealth creating ability of the overall system.
It's interesting that the highest income tax period in America was from from 1945 - 1975 and this coincided with the highest rates of economic growth and personal prosperity. While correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation of course, it does suggest that higher taxes don't necessarily impede growth.
Imho it probably depends on the nature of the tax, and what its used for, and with a revenue neutral carbon tax, or carbon tax and dividend the money is likely to flow back into job creating activities rather the black hole of government. So I struggle to see how it would reduce gdp growth, and its more likely to be neutral in effect, but of course when you factor in the growth destroying aspect of climate change, such a tax is effectively enhancing growth.
-
mkrichew at 06:20 AM on 8 May 2018Climate's changed before
I disagree with your statement that science has a good understanding of past climate changes and their causes. It does not. Also,Milankovitch was obviously brilliant to have figured out the spinning shifts of the earth. I believe he said that it might explain ice age cycles. Wikipedia gave a good explanation of the faults with that theory. I prefer my own theory listed as the Mike Krichew theory of what causes ice ages. So ask yourself the question: where does all the carbon dioxide come from in previous ice ages? I believe it came from warming oceans. This would explain why CO2 levels lag global warming in the data. So, what does the data say about warming oceans today. I have read that they are warming and thus giving off a lot more CO2 than our burning of fossil fuels now. Thus, I argue that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning today it will not stop global warming.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are already skating on the thin ice of sloganeering by not providing science-based references for your own theories about what caused the ice ages and what is driving global warming.
Sloganeering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
MA Rodger at 19:28 PM on 7 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Digby Scrogie @18,
And keeping climatologists to a 1961-90 baseline is a bit like herding cats while the pre-industrial-to-std-baseline warming is only offered with the greatest reluctance, a reluctance absent with the likes of sea level, GHG levels, or even pre-industrial-temps relative to the Early Eocene. As an example, the IPCC AR5 Technical Summary will talk of limiting ΔT to 1.5ºC or 2ºC above "pre-industrial" but resorts to using 19th century temperatures without eplicitly saying 'this is being used as the pre-industrial T' and even then with this being "assumed" rather than set more confidently. Thus AR5.Technical Summary TFE.8 'Climate Targets & Stabalisation':-
"In the near term (2016–2035), global mean surface warming is more likely than not to exceed 1°C and very unlikely to be more than 1.5°C relative to the average from year 1850 to 1900 (assuming 0.61°C warming from 1850-1900 to 1986–2005) (medium confidence). " (My emphasis)
(And note the 1986-2005 baseline employed.)
You have to delve into the AR5 Synthesis Report before you find somebody sneaking in explicit use of "relative to pre-industrial" (eg on the y-axis of Figure SMP10b, which is a graphic re-used from Figure SMP5b that does not.) I can understand the reluctance but this "relative to pre-industrial" thing is a nettle that requires being better grasped.
-
nigelj at 16:10 PM on 7 May 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
Regulatory capture seems like an understatement to me. More like total evisceration.
This article is relevant to the Scott Pruitt issue : "Trump Picks TV Snake Oil Salesman Dr. Oz, of All People, to Serve on Health Council".
Yes its another inappropriate person for the job, and the article has interesting insight on why Trump may have made this particular choice. You will laugh or cry, depending on your mood.
-
Digby Scorgie at 14:30 PM on 7 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
MA Rodger @17
Dogby? Well, that's a new one!
I see the problem with baselines, but it seems to me there is a solution: Agree to use, for example, 1961 to 1990 as the historical baseline, and then arbitrarily specify the warming from pre-industrial up to that baseline as equal to some consensus amount. It's like agreeing on the freezing and boiling points of water for the Celsius scale — well, sort-of. Maybe someone can think of a better analogy.
-
bozzza at 16:26 PM on 6 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
'Peer review' is of course just another part of standardised method! Otherwise it's just anarchy with beakers.... without method you have man in his natural state bordering on the side of cruelty!
-
MA Rodger at 22:11 PM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Dogby Scorgie @15,
The use of a 30-year baseline set before the second half of the 20th century is made difficult as much of the data used to calculate such an early baseline will be of low quality and much entirely absent. The WMO approach used to be to update the baseline used every 30 years but that has become every 10 years as AGW creates significant change while the baseline data will be used by some without consideration of that change. Thus the WMO decided to update baselines every 10 years (so now it is 1980-2010) but to keep 1961-90 "as the historical base period for the sake of supporting long-term climate change assessments." Note baselines will be used for all types of data not just temperature. And for global temperature records,1961-90 is the anomaly base used by HadCRUT but BEST & GISS use 1951-80 and the NOAA 'Climate at a Glance' Global ime Series pages say "Please note, global and hemispheric anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average. Continental anomalies are with respect to the 1910 to 2000 average. Coordinate anomalies are with respect to the 1981 to 2010 average."
-
DrivingBy at 12:39 PM on 5 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
Eh, there's no use arguing directly with most who post that retread, they've checked out of any countertext by the fourth sentence. They're doing politics, not science.
In any case, Edward Teller state in 1957 that global warming would occur, and even with an offhand estimate calculated the rise in CO2 with surprising accuracy (estimating "about360ppm" for the 1990s), and also hitting the range of warming ("it's hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Farenheit or 5). We're now a bit past 2 degrees F from a 1900-1950 baseline and a little more from pre-industrial.
So when Doofus cries that "they" predicted global cooling, reply that Teller would nuke his ask at that comment.
-
Evan at 12:16 PM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Digby @15
For an example of just how hard this is, check out the following Scientific American article and the following quote (emphasis mine).
In what’s become a spring tradition like Passover and Easter, carbon dioxide has set a record high each year since measurements began. It stood at 280 ppm when record keeping began at Mauna Loa in 1958. In 2013, it passed 400 ppm. Just four years later, the 400 ppm mark is no longer a novelty. It’s the norm.
Yes, they are saying that when CO2 measurements began in 1959 that we had 280 ppm CO2. Not only is there a problem defining consistent baselines, but there is further confusion about getting simple facts correct.
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:00 PM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Regarding temperature anomalies, I've seen it expressed thus: increase your body temperature by two degrees and you don't feel well, but increase it by four degrees and you're dead!
Regarding baselines, as I understand it, the various teams investigating the problem use different baselines. Has there not been a move to get everyone using the same baseline? It would really help if the baseline was close to what is considered to be "pre-industrial".
-
nigelj at 08:54 AM on 5 May 2018New research, April 23-29, 2018
Some very good research, however it's astounding that there doesn't seem to be any proper published research on why mitigation of emissions is so slow, and why public and politicians are slow to make the changes required. I'm thinking something that polls the public, and asks wide ranging questions.
There are obvious well known potential reasons, but one should never assume what reasons exist, or what reasons are dominant. Efforts to persuade the public and politicians to change things are just guesstimates, if they aren't based on good research.
We have the denialist campaign and corporate capture of politicians etc. People in colder climates probably think a warmer climate is good, and they rationalise away sea level rise as a price worth paying. They would be wrong, and are not looking at the full range of problems. But a research study would clarify if these are real concerns.
Apply occams razor, and the basic problem is human stupidity.
-
william5331 at 06:10 AM on 5 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
All things being equal (us not mucking up the natural flow of events) we should be going into a glacial period right now. (not an ice age -an ice age is the approximately 3m year period in which there have been around 30 glacial and interglacial periods). In fact, the lichen halo around the Baffin island High lands shows that we were already heading that way. For a really great treatment of the subject, read Plows, Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. We now may have put off this glacial (or glacial period, if you like) or more likely, when we collapse our civilization, it may come on like gang busters and wipe the slate clean right down to and past the latitude of New York. That would be something to see. A contenental glacier pushing over sky scraper after sky scraper. The bottom few floors would already be submerged.
-
Evan at 05:22 AM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
rocketeer @12
Perhaps the other issue is that many simply don't realize how sensitive the atmosphere is. I had an adult tell me, "You mean we humans can affect a planet that has been here for 4.5 billion years?" As if age implied stability (at least it does not in the case of humans), and as if our actions were small. Eat 10% more calories than is recommended (i.e., 2200 instead of 2000/day) and your body can adapt and handle it. And the rate at which you eat the extra calories does not matter too much. But increase the temperature of the Earth by 10% (use whatever baseline you prefer), and the atmosphere and other environments go through a huge readjustment. The atmosphere within which we live is simply a sensitive system, and many people don't get that, because there is a time lag between our actions and the response.
Your reference to small changes in body temperature having big effects is perhaps the best example of a sensitive system to which we can identify.
-
Dcrickett at 04:27 AM on 5 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
Ref #1 nigelj
Good point in ¶3.
I remember an article in a popular slick magazine, most likely in 1973, that mentioned both global warming and cooling; it ventured that one might cancel out the other. In Table 1, by 1973 the number of warming papers was pretty much the same as the total of cooling and neutral papers, so a presumption of "no consensus" at that time appears to me as reasonable. However, in the time it takes to get a kid out from the maternity ward into a kindergarten, it is clear that a warming consensus had developed.
-
Evan at 04:17 AM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
MA Rodger @10.
Thanks for the educational tutorial. I'm always sure that if I take stab at it and miss something, that someone like yourself will come along to clarify.
Perhaps I was not clear in my explanation. I understand that surface temperatures over the ocean are cooler than over land. And I understand that the data set is not perfect, and appreciate your detailed explanation of where it is not perfect. My main point (which I think is still valid) is that the only thing that really makes sense to track is the combined land+ocean temperature, because that gives the most consistent picture of how things are changing from year to year.
In any case, thanks for your detailed explanation.
-
rocketeer at 03:56 AM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
I think the real issue is not the datum whihc is designated as zero, but the implication that small percentages are unimportant. This is patently silly. Would you be concerned if only 0.3% of an Airbus 380 was falling on your head? Or to make it more relevant to the Kelvin scale, consider that a 1% increase in body temperature is the difference between being perfectly healthy and being in the hospital.
The difference between the last glacial maximum when there was mile-deep ice covering much of North America and today is a global temperature change of about 5 K. That is only a change of about 2% according to Giaver's reasoning, but it sure isn't trivial.
-
MA Rodger at 03:26 AM on 5 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Evan @10,
Your graph in the OP is plotting GISS LOTI and that is "Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies," a combined record using GHCNv2 SAT & ERSSTv5 and not as you say @10.
Oh, no! I am yet another engineer. But I will still have a stab at the Qs @8:-
(1) The 2ºC limit is the global land & ocean temperature rise. It does make a difference. GISS LOTI, for instance rose +1.2ºC above the 1880-1900 average in 2016. Yet GHCNv2 SAT rose +1.7ºC, a significant difference.
(2) The relationship between ocean SAT & SST is quite strong although the season, time of day and geographical location will impact that relationship. Beyond those considerations (which are fixed through a temperature record), my understanding is that the variation of the relationship is then mainly down to wind speed (which is not fixed through the record). Note that the Land SAT is the average of Tmax & Tmin which differs from the actual daily average.
So we do have apples and oranges, but that is the only data available if we want a full 20th century record. We are therefore stuck with it.(3) Anomalies are required to create a global average from point measurements as the anomaly remains constant over a far wider area than an absolute temperature. So we are stuck with anomalies even if we weren't combining SST & SAT.
(4) The idea that the global average temperature anomaly is a simply and cleanly derived quantity (non-weird abet a combination of SST & SAT) does tend to become a difficult idea to sustain when the decisions required in creating the global anomaly begins to be better understood. As an example, take the SST-over-ocean/SAT-over-land situation and consider that each year 10 million sq km of Arctic sea ice and 15 million sq km of Antarctic sea ice melts away being replaced by ocean. Thats 5% of the global area. And with AGW the actual ocean being thus exposed in the Arctic is much different today than it was back in 1900. (Antarctic temperatures are not addressed by GISS LOTI until the second half of the 20th century. It is the same with temperatures in the high Arctic but we can assume they were premanently frozen through those years.) The BEST global temperature record gives two different approaches to tackling the sea ice problem and one way adds roughly +0.15ºC to the warming since 1900 than the other does.
-
Evan at 23:15 PM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
John @8, have a look at the following link where the GISS methodology is explained. When referring to Land+Ocean, the GISS plot I included is still an air-temperature anomaly, referring to global surface temperature. As such, it is simply tracking an average temperature that is a combination of surface temperature over land and over ocean. It is not, as I understand it, the ocean-water temperature, but rather the average surface temperature over the ocean and land.
-
Evan at 22:59 PM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
John @7. I am not any kind of authority on the topic of temperatures, but let me offer my thoughts based on what I've learned.
We are really concerned with the total energy accumulated by the combination of land+oceans. We want to express this total energy as a single temperature difference that gives us a single index. That is, layman like us (I am a chemical engineer, but not a Climate Scientist) can more easily grasp the meaning of temperature than we can energy. But to make this meaningful, the "average temperature change" needs to correlate to what's happening over the entire surface of the earth, and not just one part. So combining land+ocean simply reflects that we live on land but that our energy system is dominated by a water world. The two are linked, and because the oceans strongly control temperature fluctuations, we must include both oceans and land to come up with any kind of meaningful index, such as "average temperature anomaly."
Until you raised this good question, I had never thought about it being meaningful to separate land and ocean temperatures, simply because what we want is a single temperature that gives the average temperature change over the entire earth.
Taking a stab at your questions
1) My understanding is that the 2-degree limit corresponds to combined land+ocean average.
2) No, because land+ocean are a linked energy system. El Ninos transfer lots of energy from the oceans into the air, and La Ninas transfer a lot of energy from the air to the oceans. They really need to be considered as a linked system. Obviously if you live in the Arctic the temperatures there control what happens locally, but for the purpose of creating a global index with a single number, we must look at the entire system.
3) I will pass on this question. Hopefully someone can step in.
4) See above comments.
Now we are waiting for a real Cliamate Scientist to respond. :-)
-
John Hartz at 22:56 PM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
I inadvertantly deleted the following post. My apology to John S.
John S at 21:13 PM on 4 May 2018
I recall watching Glaevers talk and being unimpressed by him making fun of climate scientists for supposedly thinking it possible to get an accurate average absolute temperature of the whole globe. It was as if he had never noticed that the vertical axis was labled "tempeature anomaly". Or maybe he didn't understand that it simply means change from a baseline (to be fair it is a bit of an unusual use of that word - different from its use in everyday language). I had previously read an explanation on the NASA website as to why the so-called "temperature anomaly" is used.
However, this posting reminded me of questions I have re the rationale and justification for using combined land and ocean data; first I should reveaL I am a retired engineer struggling to understand the science and know I never will entirely, but I keep on trying, so I'm hoping some compassionate scientist out there will take my questions at face value and provide explanations in layman's language:
1) what does the 2 degree limit of Paris Agreement refer to, land only or land and ocean?
2) isn't combining land and ocean a bit like adding apples and oranges?
3) is the answer to 2) no more than the use of anomalies and the fact that the data in succeeding time intervals always come from the exact same locations, plus the fact it is useful to refer to a single number?
4) is there anything else anyone can say that might me feel better about combined land and ocean data, as it seems a bit weird to me?
Cheers
in my e purpose of me posting this is an enquiry
-
John S at 21:29 PM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
it always happens - a minute after I hit 'submit' I realized I had garbled some language myself so this correction is to avoid possibly leading anyone else astray or creating unnecessary side-tracks .. I had wrongly referred to "anomaly" as being a change from a baseline whereas I should have said "difference" .. subtle but open for misinterpreation .. also to be fair then I checked Thesausrus provided by Word and sure enough one of the synonyms of "anomaly" it gives is "difference" so maybe it is not such an unusal use of language
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:25 PM on 4 May 2018CO2 lags temperature
mkrichew
To expand on pscadden's comment. If CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were steady and temperatures were rising, then the ocean would be outgassing. That is basic chemistry from Henry's Law.
However, since we are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, the need to equilibrate CO2 concentrations in the ocean and the atmosphere means that CO2 levels in the oceans need to rise. The temperature dependent aspect of Henry's Law is outweighed by the partial pressure dependency. -
KingInYellow at 17:14 PM on 4 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
@nigelj
When doing my course we also used the Barry & Chorley book, and mine was 5th edition ~1988 (it's in storage as I am between houses) and once again made no mention of a potential cooling instead focusing on the basic physics as you would expect.
-
scaddenp at 14:02 PM on 4 May 2018CO2 lags temperature
mkrichew - the first graph (Fig 1) is cyclic in sense that it is the superposition of the 3 Milankovich cycles. These orbital cycles affect climate by making large variation to insolation around 65N, affecting the albedo by changes in snow cover which in turn sets up other feedbacks. However, they only came to affect climate when CO2 dropped below 400ppm (long term geological sequestration). They dont do much in a warmer earth. Note also that those cycles are slow. A maximum change in forcing of around 0.25W/m2 per century at 65N compared with 1.66W/m2 per century from CO2 alone across entire whole globe.
"I believe but could be wrong that the ocean is already warming and giving off more carbon dioxide than we do burning fossil fuels"
Fortunately, you are wrong. The oceans are still net absorbers of CO2 and will continue to do so for centuries (ocean mixing takes a long time). Details in Ar5 chp 6.
-
mkrichew at 13:00 PM on 4 May 2018CO2 lags temperature
This has probably been said but the first graph looks cyclic to me. Also, the graphs have been correlated to two other scientific phenomena, oxygen isotope ratio variation and extinctions. The point is, climate change has happened before and likely will happen again. Check out the Mike Krichew theory of what causes ice ages on my facebook page. If my theory is correct and the IPCC has pretty much proved the first part of it, then unless you want to spend money on cooling the ocean and removing CO2 from the air then we are going to see what global warming is. I believe but could be wrong that the ocean is already warming and giving off more carbon dioxide than we do burning fossil fuels. Folks, the ship has sailed or the train has left the station. We are going to find out the results of what we started.
-
Evan at 12:04 PM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
Thanks Wol for the clarification. I changed "altitude" to "elevation". For those interested, here is a link explaining the different elevations used in aviation.
-
David Kirtley at 11:17 AM on 4 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
That's very interesting, nigelj.
I have a Putnam's Geology from my college days in the mid-80's. Published 1982, so it too should represent "1970s" science. It says a little bit about possible causes of past ice ages, and discusses other factors like CO2 and dust/aerosols impacting climate, but there's next to nothing about a "cooling consensus" or a future ice age.
-
Wol at 10:43 AM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
>>The altitude of an airplane landing on a runway is only useful if measured relative to the ground, and not to sea level.<<
It behoves someone writing about the interpretation of words to get his own interpretations correct!
"Altitude" in the context of that quote IS actually measured with respect to sea level - the distance between the aircraft and the runway is "height".
(Tongue in nit-picking cheek.)
-
nigelj at 07:14 AM on 4 May 2018The 1970s Global Cooling Zombie Myth and the Tricks Some People Use to Keep it Alive, Part I
When I was at university in the early 1980's I did a few papers in physical geography, among other subjects. I still have one of the introductory text books "Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, Barry and Chorley, 1971 edition, reprinted 1975, so written right at the time of the supposed global cooling consensus.
There's absolutely nothing in this text about any cooling consensus, or anything similar. If there was such a thing, it would probably have got a mention. The authors talk about the post 1940s cooling period, and they say it remains to be seen if its temporary or continues, and they present no consensus or predictions either way.
The climate denialists rush together distorted, cherrypicked studies hoping nobody will check. They aren't interested in facts and the complete picture, only in finding ammunition. They use the same tactics as lawyers, including long superficially intimidating lists, but all hollow inside.
-
scaddenp at 06:47 AM on 4 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
mbryson - love it! Maybe I will buy that beachside holiday house after all :-).
That is an excellent analogy.
-
mbryson at 23:24 PM on 3 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
So you're telling me that sea level at the end of the ice age only increased by a factor of about .00002 (relative to the centre of the earth)? Why would anyone worry about that?
-
nigelj at 07:21 AM on 3 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
“From ~1880 to 2013 temperature increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%). If this is true, to me it means that the temperature has been amazingly stable.”
No it hasn't, because that 0.3% change has happened in a very short part of human history so its not stable from humans point of view, and what we are adapted to.
Gaiver must know this, so is being deliberately obtuse probably for political reasons. For proof he does work for the Heartland Institute, and talks in their language.
The analogy is the article is very good.
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Every one of us does motivation reasoning. Also known as rationalization. Highly intelligent people are just especially good at devising very complex support for what they want to believe.
Visiting a highly intelligent person in prison to try and help with his drug problem really brought this home to me. You had to work very hard to spot the loose links in his chains of logic - which naturally concluded that drugs werent an issue for him - just his choice same way other people drank coffee - and that it was everyone else at fault.
Scientists are not immune so no matter how much you believe your conclusions are data-driven, you still need peer-review.
-
ubrew12 at 06:48 AM on 3 May 2018SkS Analogy 11 - Cabinets, airplanes, and frame of reference
A friend on facebook forwarded Giaever's talk. I told him it shouldn't take someone 5 minutes of their time to find such a massive mistake. I refer people to this graph of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2, and sea level, point out that the depths of the last ice age was only 3.3 C (6F) cooler than present, and then ask them if having Chicago under a mile of ice was a significantly different climate than present and, if so, why wouldn't 3 C warmer than present also be a difficult adaptation to make?
-
nigelj at 06:24 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Knaugle, S Vedantum has indeeed written a book on the hidden brain, but he's a journalist and electronics engineer, not a psychologist, so I would be cautious about accepting absolutely everything he says. Its an interesting book worth a read, but thats as far as it goes.
The point is really not that we are all perfectly rational, because we aren't. The point is we clearly differ in how rational we are.
Understand that the article I originally quoted is saying low intelligence assocates with conspiracy thinking, but that high intelligence people can sometimes be accepting of conspiracy theories also, because some high intelligence people are poor rational thinkers.
"Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am." You prove my point exactly. Scott Pruitt is intelligent enough but says and does stupid irrational things and believes agw is all a hoax for example.
Its clear many climate denialists are conspiracy thinkers. Of course many are also influenced by politics, it's not an either / or thing.
The research I quoted showing as association between conspiracy theorists and low intelligence and / or poor rational thinking skills has been replicated many times, heres another relevant article on the research.
. -
william5331 at 06:23 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
One doubts that the average TV meterologist will actually be equiped or have the time to put weather events in the context of climate. At best they may be able to make a statement such as this storm is within the top quartile with respect to the amount of rain dumped in a given period or something similar. Besides, only when they collect a bunch of events and compare them with the historical record will their comments gain a modicum of scientific respectability. Hopefully they will have a climatologist on tap to make relevant statments for the TV presenters to use.
-
SirCharles at 03:11 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4lXjcnEOnB0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
SirCharles at 03:09 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
Under the Trump administration, the EPA has moved closer than at any point in its history to serving the needs of the entities it regulates rather than the agency's mission to serve the public, a new report in the American Journal of Public Health says.
=> Pruitt's EPA Is on the Verge of 'Regulatory Capture', Study Says
-
Xulonn at 02:32 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters, a former "Hurricane Hunter" crew member, co-founded The Weather Underground, Inc. in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. In the meteorology community, he was an early supporter the findings of climate science that indicated that AGW/CC (Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate
Change) was a looming disaster for human civilization.from Jeff was among the minority of meteorologists for many yearsOne of the subset of blogs at Weather Underground for several years was that of University of Michigan climate scientist and mitigation planner Dr. Ricky Rood. I participated at the Rood blog for several years, discussing science and doing battle with hard-core AGW/CC denialists, even as I continued to study climate science. I even took an online course (MOOC) in basic climate science from Canada's University of British Columbia.
Unfortunately, the Rood climate blog was discontinued a couple of years ago when IBM purchased Weather Underground for its weather analysis products. Fortunately, even though it does not produce a "revenue stream" Jeff Masters and his climate communication associate Bob Henson, continue to blog there - and they frequently discuss climate and AGW/CC.
During my years of participation at Dr. Rood's blog, I became acutely aware that, based on surveys, a majority of broadcast meteorologists were firmly in the "AGW/CC denialist" camp. Along with the engineering community, these were two major groups of science-based professionals that we should be able to convince with science and logic. But logic be damned, these professionals stubbornly resisted science and fact-based reality for many years. (Unfortunately, broadcast meteorologists - if they want to keep their jobs - are bound by the direcives of their employers to toe the corporate line and ignore AGW/CC - or treat it as a false alarm.)
It is great to see this significant change in the participation of broadcast meteorologists in the AGW/CC discussion. They probably reach and influence more laypersons than any other group, and are critical to informing the public of the reality of the dangers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change.
Engineers are another issue. Although they do not communicate daily with the public like broadcast meteorologists, many are still vocal in their denialism. Plus, it is an unfortunate reality that many engineers think that they and their technoogies can fix almost any problem - including AGW/CC. Engineering and technology solutions can generate massive revenue for corporations, so their proponents tend to ignore or overlook societal impacts and other externalities. Again, basic human nature makes us want to ignore or deny anything that would have a negative impact on our lives and economic well-being. Therefore many people will eagerly jump on the promises of technological solutions, adding yet more resistance to the unequivical necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emission.
But that is a "whole 'nuther problem" - and I am very happy to see the positive changes in the broadcast meteorology community.
-
Doug_C at 02:09 AM on 3 May 2018Republicans have so corrupted EPA, Americans can only save it in the voting booth
18 states are now suing the EPA over the arbitrary changes made under the Trump appointed Scott Pruitt.
California, 17 other states sue Trump administration to defend Obama-era climate rules for vehicles
-
Evan at 00:15 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
If you've read this far down into the Comments section, chances are you will be interested in the following post about Paul Douglas, one of the most respected weather forecasters who spoke out on Climate Change.
-
RickG at 00:01 AM on 3 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
I watch the Weather Channel quite a bit and have yet to see anything other than a passing comment concerning climate and that is quite rare. As for IQ being a reason for denial I don't encounter that. What I see in discussions from deniers is 100% politics. I can't enter a discussion, not even mentioning a person or anything political, and immediately get called a liberal.
-
knaugle at 23:02 PM on 2 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
#1
I would be very hesitant to say that those who believe climate change is a hoax have a lower IQ. As for motivation to be rational? There is a radio personality on USA Public Radio, Shankar Vedantum, whose book "The Hidden Brain" points to much evidence that most of us are far less rational than we think. Most of us have deeply held beliefs we have clung do for decades. Something as feeble as "facts" is not about to change that!
Only when you come to accept that that is the case can one move beyond one's personal biases. It has very little to do with relative intelligence. Some of the most "stupid" people I know are far smarter than I am. This is something to bear in mind when talking with a "true believer".
-
Evan at 22:43 PM on 2 May 2018TV Meteorologists Seen Warming to Climate Science
Dr Ivar Giaever is a Nobel laureate who believes that global warming is a religion of sorts. So when an uninformed person is getting information from a person like Dr. Giaever, it can be confusing to determine what is the truth.
Meteorologists are important scientific ambassadors in this respect, but they also risk losing their jobs if they speak up too much on what is still a very controversial subject. We need to respect and support the effort and risk they are making by speaking up.
-
nigelj at 14:46 PM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Scaddenp @28
I think it would be shades of grey on these moral foundation attributes in general. My personal observation is liberals do respect authority, loyalty and purity, but perhaps not as much as conservatives, and liberals are prepared to challenge authority and the accepted wisdom more than conservatives, and while conservatives do have more respect for authority in a general sense, this is not always the case - for example Obama was not too popular with conservatives, and neither are scientists, and they are a type of authority. Clearly then moral foundations can supersede each other, or can be somewhat ad hoc. However the basic moral foundation theory sounds very compelling to me.
However conservatives do seem to loathe protesters especially when it leads ro tresspass or property damage, and the scruffy dress maybe offends the purity value. Liberals accept pushing the boundaries of the law, but not to the extent of deliberate property destruction, only to the extent of obtaining information or making a point, which often seems reasonable to me. It's good to see a theory behind this sort of thing.
A lot of this is surely also about exactly how things are defined, and defining freedom is a case in point. Conservatives do seem to conflate freedom and selfishness, although ultimately I suppose it could be argued they are the same things in the sense complete freedom is the right to do absolutely anything. Yet clearly conservatives do not actually believe in that, as they are strong advocates for property law for example which limit freedom. It almost seems that conservatives are defining freedom as whatever their own form of preferred set of laws law says at some point in time, as opposed to some wider philosophical interpretation.
And people apply double standards to freedom, for example they want to be free do do what they like in the name of "freedom" but they certainly do not apply the same standard to other people, who they say should face restrictions, and this can apply to the exact same activity, or different activities. An example of the later is conservatives to do not believe, in the main that people should be free to take drugs, yet they do sometimes believe business should be free to sell products that demonstrably cause toxic environmental effects. Double standards and irrationality abound.
Of course some of this double standard applies to liberals at times, because although they don't promote freedom as strongly as a core value in moral foundation theory, they certainly have many views that involve questions of having freedom, for example they promote use and availability of medicinal cannabis, to name a recent example, while wanting various other activities restricted. However perhaps its not a double standard, as it seems to me Liberals do apply certain tests related to freedom, and question whether an activity is having a tangible and harmful effect on other people. Conservatives seem to have other criteria harder to comprehend.
Clearly your gun ownership dilemma is a good example of how trade offs are made on these moral foundation principles, and for conservatives it seems complicated, where for liberals the idea of fairness is clearly at the top of the hierarchy of values so is a clear lens for everything. So for liberals its fair people own guns for sensible purposes , but not fair on society as a whole that just anyone can buy any sort of gun. Or perhaps liberals would say "not rational". However I'm speculating.
Regarding freedom, there's an article on wikipedia titled "reactance (psychology)" and there's empirical evidence for it. Imho it seems like it might be a dominant conservative trait and explains distaste for certain things.
"Reactance is a motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away their choices or limiting the range of alternatives."
"Reactances can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended, and also increases resistance to persuasion. People using reverse psychology are playing on reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request."
-
jsmith at 14:20 PM on 2 May 2018Global warming stopped in
1998,1995,2002,2007,2010, ????
The Camp 2007 link is dead and should be fixed. Here's a working archived copy.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked links breaking page formatting and updated link. Thanks!
-
scaddenp at 11:59 AM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Moral foundation theory would say that liberals only pay attention to Care and Fair dimensions whereas Conservative also play with Authority, Loyality and Purity. Conservatives do respect care and fair, but balance those against the other dimensions as well. Freedom is also postulated as a moral foundation which would figure more heavily in conservative evaluation, though I find its actual practise in a moral argument hard to distinguish from a rationalisation for selfishness. Depends a bit I guess on whether someone is prepared to value others freedom of action as highly as their own; and how they would value freedom against possible harm to others (violation of care). Gun control debate in USA possibly says something about that.
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 2 May 2018Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality
Scaddenp @25, it's hard to argue with what you are saying on morality. An inconvenient truth would have been better filmed by someone more neutral like national geographic, but too late now. History is a messy, untidy process.
However it all goes both ways. Conservatives also need to respect liberal morality a bit more as well.
Prev 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 Next
