2 of 2
2
A Frustrated Bystander’s Observations, on Five Decades of Climate Science Communication - From an Earth-centrist perspective.
Posted: 13 November 2017 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 09 November 2017 11:10 PM

Earth-centrist is one who’s focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man’s many fanciful machinations.

A somewhat random review

Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

Is it a service or disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion?

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again. 

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist.  Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  Not wise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing.  All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix.

Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious.  Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it.  We have left our historic climate regime.  Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM + + world we have created for ourselves and children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Seepage”

Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.Lewandowsky

As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem.”

Check out his paper:

“Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” -

  1   the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community
or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 
  2   those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. 
Also see: 
GregLaden. com - May 14, 2015
HotWhopper. com - May 14, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”  

Climate change is a result, not a cause!
Give credit where credit is due.
It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes!

Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing. 

Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  2013-06-01
TromboneAndrew - 13 November 2017 10:35 AM
MikeYohe - 13 November 2017 07:04 AM
TromboneAndrew - 11 November 2017 06:51 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 November 2017 06:05 PM

Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe. 

Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available.

Not trying to drag this out. But where is the “clarity”? Please explain what the intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing means and show me how it is not a miss-leading statement.

There is a difference between criticizing the contents of a claim and just reading it and understanding what the claim is, well, claiming. I’m not even trying to justify it at this point; I’m just saying that first we need to read a claim (or statement, yada yada) for what it is before criticizing it. I know I’m not going to change your mind on the facts of global warming, so I’m not going to even try. But I think it is worth it to agree on what a statement says in the first place, regardless of what we otherwise think about its merits.


Totally agree. I remember a few years back when the term Climate Change started replacing much of the use of term Global Warming. I read a White House report that only used Climate Change and not Global Warming. Very confusing until I understood what they were trying to do. Myself, I feel Global Warming is what it is. And we now have it down to two pathways. It is man-kinds job and responsibility to take care of the earth. And whatever pathway turns out to be correct, I will support it with no problem.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 13 November 2017 02:14 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 09 November 2017 11:10 PM

Earth-centrist is one who’s focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man’s many fanciful machinations.

A somewhat random review

Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

Is it a service or disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion?

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again. 

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist.  Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  Not wise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing.  All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix.

Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious.  Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it.  We have left our historic climate regime.  Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM + + world we have created for ourselves and children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Seepage”

Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.Lewandowsky

As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem.”

Check out his paper:

“Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” -

  1   the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community
or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 
  2   those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. 
Also see: 
GregLaden. com - May 14, 2015
HotWhopper. com - May 14, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”  

Climate change is a result, not a cause!
Give credit where credit is due.
It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes!

Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing. 

Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.

To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct!  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

a clarification

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER

More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere;
more infrared radiation bouncing around within the atmosphere;
more heat and energy accumulating within the atmosphere;
more moisture the atmosphere holds.

More heat, moisture and energy being moved around by weather systems;
more destructive weather events.

Cascading Consequences.

[ Edited: 13 November 2017 08:00 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
LoisL - 13 November 2017 02:14 PM

Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.

Okay, if you want to put it that way.  smile  Lois, I’ll save our quibbles for juicer topics.   tongue wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 09:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 13 November 2017 08:04 PM
LoisL - 13 November 2017 02:14 PM

Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.

Okay, if you want to put it that way.  smile  Lois, I’ll save our quibbles for juicer topics.   tongue wink

Ok, I’m just happy they Mike Yohe thinks we’ll have stable weather for another 1000 years. i was beginning to ge5 worried

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 November 2017 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 November 2017 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 13 November 2017 03:57 PM

To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct!  grin

That is so profoundly stupid and tangled.  Thats what happens when people get lost within their own mindscapes. 
Mikie, there’s a real physical world out here. 
Better “food” production, if we don’t over acidify our ocean and kick into motion something altogether more ominous.
But good food for what?  Good for who?

We are humans who have built an incredibly complex society dependent on constant upkeep, and connections you seem incapable of fathoming.
This wilder warming world will with time create hugely productive jungles separated by massive desserts.
And you MikeYohe are treating that reality as a so-so, who gives fuk.

How Much More Will Earth Warm?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

Living Warmer: How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth
By Wynne Parry | December 8, 2010
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html


What the World Will Look Like 4°C Warmer
May 22, 2017 by Frank Jacobs
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer

Here are 24 effects of global warming on the environment.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/globalwarmingeffects.php

downer

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2017 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2254
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 14 November 2017 10:44 AM
MikeYohe - 13 November 2017 03:57 PM

To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct!  grin

That is so profoundly stupid and tangled.  Thats what happens when people get lost within their own mindscapes. 
Mikie, there’s a real physical world out here. 
Better “food” production, if we don’t over acidify our ocean and kick into motion something altogether more ominous.
But good food for what?  Good for who?

We are humans who have built an incredibly complex society dependent on constant upkeep, and connections you seem incapable of fathoming.
This wilder warming world will with time create hugely productive jungles separated by massive desserts.
And you MikeYohe are treating that reality as a so-so, who gives fuk.

How Much More Will Earth Warm?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

Living Warmer: How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth
By Wynne Parry | December 8, 2010
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html


What the World Will Look Like 4°C Warmer
May 22, 2017 by Frank Jacobs
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-like-4degc-warmer

Here are 24 effects of global warming on the environment.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/globalwarmingeffects.php

downer

 
Are these more alarmist predictions? Every prediction so far has been wrong. And the NASA prediction should have a disclaimer that they have not yet figured out the numbers and the clouds when it comes to how the earth thermostat works.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2017 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 15 November 2017 09:22 AM

Every prediction so far has been wrong.

Please offer some examples of serious science projections,
published in serious peer reviewed literature as opposed to any wacko writer who’s writing nonsense on the topic.
Remember honestly represent the science that supports what you claim.

Mikie what you are saying is ludicrous inaccuracy.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLSZ6U_VyGk
Our biosphere is degrading at a breathtaking speed.
and the MikeYohes are so disconnected they actually believed their own bullshit.

Oh and why do you ignore this?

Key studies that have withstood the test of time:

1959 - “Carbon Dioxide and Climate”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: “A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man’s activities influence the climate of the future?” … During the past century a new geological force has begun to exert its effect upon the carbon dioxide equilibrium of the earth [see graphs on page 43]. By burning fossil fuels man dumps approximately six billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. His agricultural activities release two billion tons more. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1967 - “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity”

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
Ethan Siegel, March 15, 2017, Forbes.com

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#1001b776614d

Modeling the Earth’s climate is one of the most daunting, complicated tasks out there. If only we were more like the Moon, things would be easy. The Moon has no atmosphere, no oceans, no icecaps, no seasons, and no complicated flora and fauna to get in the way of simple radiative physics.

No wonder it’s so challenging to model! In fact, if you google “climate models wrong”, eight of the first ten results showcase failure.

But headlines are never as reliable as going to the scientific source itself, and the ultimate source, in this case, is the first accurate climate model ever: by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald. 50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1972 - “Man-made carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse” effect”
A remarkably accurate global warming prediction, made in 1972
Dana Nuccitelli, March 19, 2014, UK Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972

A paper published in Nature in 1972 accurately predicted the next 30 years of global warming

John Stanley (J.S.) Sawyer was a British meteorologist born in 1916. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1962, and was also a Fellow of the Meteorological Society and the organization’s president from 1963 to 1965.

A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1975 - “Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/broecker_science_1975.pdf

https://thinkprogress.org/wallace-broeckers-remarkable-1975-global-warming-prediction-1976337267b8/

Wallace Broecker was among the first climate scientists to use simple climate models to predict future global temperature changes.

Broecker anticipated the actual increase in CO2 very closely, predicting 373 ppm in 2000 and 403 ppm in 2010 (actual values were 369 and 390 ppm, respectively). Broecker also used an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2; however, his model’s transient climate sensitivity worked out to be 2.4°C for doubled CO2.  …
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1981 - “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”
http://www.c02.gr/pdf/6.pdf

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and
anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions.
As it turns out, the authors’  projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present. …

( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html )
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2015 - First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect

February 25, 2015
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth
(also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now.
The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity.
The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

Define the Debate, A to Z

A Constructive Argument is based on real facts,
with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand. 

Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. 
Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts. 

If we fail, it means something.  It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. 
Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout.

Z Lawyerly Debate, well represented by MikeYohe,
winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. 
Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite. 
Objective learning is not the object.

Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 November 2017 08:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1893
Joined  2016-12-24

A look at trumps assault on the norms governing how our leaders engage with us and in turn how that effects the way we engage with one another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZAPwfrtAFY

Published on Nov 12, 2017
One year after the presidential election, John Oliver discusses what we’ve learned so far.
3:30 - actual quote from trump speaking.  Incoherent as a tweaker.

5:20 - delegitimizing the Media (in mike’s case science) 
6:20 - Whataboutism - moral equivalency
8:50 - Trolling - 10:08 President bragging on being “most superior troll”

12:20 - How low can trump go - The “figure it out yourself” president.
“I didn’t stand by anything” - lordie and that was elected president !?

14:50 - the moral, intellectual coward Congressman Paul Gosar

And this is your man???  smirk

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2