Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,277
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    weatherman27
    Newest Member
    weatherman27
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

MSNBC has a great series on the climate catastrophe.  They interviewed a scientist who used to work for the USDA, who has since left to work for Columbia university because the administration wouldn't let him publish his research.  He showed that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually changes plant metabolism and makes our crops less nutritious, with lower levels of zinc and iron.  They also sent people down to Guatemala to show how climate change is causing the mass migration of people from Central America, because they cant grow their crops down there anymore and are starving.  The administration's own people told them this a year ago but they chose not to disclose it.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

As the deniers get even more desperate, they have continued to attack Greta Thunberg. New attacks include a recycled dishonest claim by Anthony Watts that Greta Thunberg claimd that she can "see" carbon dioxide.

Joe Bastardi is the latest to recycle the dishonest Watts claim.

JBTweet09262019.jpg

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1177031514728685568

Back on May 2, Watts wrote a blog entry entitled, "Quote of the Week: Greta Thunberg claims to be able to 'see' carbon dioxide in the air." The blog entry then goes on to quote her mother, not Greta Thunberg. Greta Thunberg is quoted nowhere in the blog entry. Nevertheless, the headline proclaims that Greta Thunberg "claims" the ability.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/02/quote-of-the-week-greta-thunberg-claims-to-be-able-to-see-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air/

In any case, the source of the quote comes from a website. On May 4, Greta Thunberg responded on Facebook:

Of course the ongoing hate campaigns never rests…

There is at least one new conspiracy theory a day.

The latest - and perhaps most entertaining - spin is that "I can see CO2 with my own eyes".

This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it's context, taken from a German newspaper.

No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid.

This should of course not be necessary to mention but since some respected newspapers have written about this without realizing that this is a fake news campaign I thought it was best to point this out.

While I am at it I also want to point out that when I say that "our civilisation is almost like a castle built in the sand" or that "our house on fire" these are metaphors too:)

https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/

And from the website on which Watts based his claim that quoted the book:

But does the mother mean that literally or only figuratively? That cannot be precisely determined from the excerpt – which we present below in its entirety.

That is why we contacted the publisher of the book in Sweden. “I was shocked by the commotion in Germany, Belgium and now also in Italy,” he says. “I can assure you that it is a metaphor; if you read the entire passage, end it with the tale of “The New Emperor’s Clothes” by Christian Anderson. So it is certainly not literal.” In a text message, the mother also says that it is only about imagery.

https://www.afrinik.com/gretas-mother-creates-clarity-passage-about-seeing-co2-was-figuratively-intended/

Did Watts take down his misleading blog entry? No.

Did Watts even bother to correct the headline attributing the quote to Thunberg? No.

Did Watts even acknowledge Thunberg's response? No.

Now, the dishonest claim is being recycled on Social Media, likely to dampen the growing attention climate change is currently receiving. Watts bears direct responsibility for this outcome whenever his misleading blog entry is cited, as those citing or linking to his claim often don't undertake the due diligence that they should to verify the claims he made. In general, when claims are sensational, due diligence is especially important.

As one looks at the climate denial movement's growing panic in the face of its shrinking influence, the nature of that movement becomes ever more apparent. The climate denial movement is not about integrity or truth. It is about dishonesty and deception, as it has no credible scientific basis on which to stand.

well astronauts can definitely see the effects of climate change, Mark Kelly talked about how he's seen the planet turning brown because of deforestation, and where is all that burning carbon going?  the sky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

MSNBC has a great series on the climate catastrophe.  They interviewed a scientist who used to work for the USDA, who has since left to work for Columbia university because the administration wouldn't let him publish his research.  He showed that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually changes plant metabolism and makes our crops less nutritious, with lower levels of zinc and iron.  They also sent people down to Guatemala to show how climate change is causing the mass migration of people from Central America, because they cant grow their crops down there anymore and are starving.  The administration's own people told them this a year ago but they chose not to disclose it.
 

In addition, I've read analysts that believe the Arab Spring generally, and the Syrian civil war specifically, to be related to climate change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

MSNBC has a great series on the climate catastrophe.  They interviewed a scientist who used to work for the USDA, who has since left to work for Columbia university because the administration wouldn't let him publish his research.  He showed that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually changes plant metabolism and makes our crops less nutritious, with lower levels of zinc and iron.  They also sent people down to Guatemala to show how climate change is causing the mass migration of people from Central America, because they cant grow their crops down there anymore and are starving.  The administration's own people told them this a year ago but they chose not to disclose it.
 

This is extremely important frame-work exposure of the crisis...  Species migration will/has be a Humanity issue just as is for any other life form that necessarily moves from areas of harm to areas less so .. impelled to do so by their very instilled/instinct to survive.  

The destablization of the Baltic region and the recent refugee flux event over the last 10 years, was not just geopolitically motivated - as some scholarly papers available to general consumption of the web-browser discuss, and are available if one bothers to go and find. They were experiencing ecological failures on a multi-year scale, already on-going, such that the fateful arrival of the aforementioned duress becomes more like 'straw that broke the camels back.' 

It is what it is in a vacuum but .. part of the facets of the culture anti-CC narrative is the lack of culpable evidence that it is effecting/affecting - when there are evidence of this and have been for a decade or more in actuality and needs to be presented and spotlighted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Minenfeld! said:

In addition, I've read analysts that believe the Arab Spring generally, and the Syrian civil war specifically, to be related to climate change.

At the time Syria's civil war erupted, there had been a severe and ongoing drought. It's plausible that the drought was one variable that contributed to that outcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Menfeld! ...apologies; I didn't see your post before submitting my own missive, else I would have responded directly to that one you made. It's directly was I was referencing in mine. 

As well, Don, agreed, and it's more than merely plausible,

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

..is an article that I found to be fairly comprehensive in elucidating the many terrestrial factors out side of purely geopolitical distinctions that fed into Syria upheaval.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow) remains solidly on course to experience its first September on record with a mean temperature of 40.0° or above. At present, a figure of 40.5° +/- 0.1° appears likely. Based on sensitivity analysis, there is an implied 97% probability of a 40.0° or above mean temperature. The current record is 37.7°, which was set in 1998.

Overall, summer 2019 featured historic warmth in Alaska. Anchorage had its first 90° day. The meteorological summer mean temperature of 62.8° exceeded the mean figure for the hottest month on record prior to 2019 by 0.1°.

In an opinion piece published in The New York Times three scientists, Vera Trainer, Rick Thoman, and Gay Sheffield, wrote about the impact climate change is having on Alaska and its environs. In part, they explained:

Nome lies south of the Arctic Circle, on the edge of the Seward Peninsula along the northern Bering Sea. The peninsula is the closest point of the North American mainland to Russia. Months of darkness and daylight alternate there. And the effects of the warming climate are front and center.

In June, people there told us, they watched a herd of musk ox retreat to small patches of snow that lingered in the hills as they panted through a three-day heat wave of temperatures at and above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal daily maximum in June is 54.9 degrees. More ominous, the ocean is now free of ice most of the year; not that long ago, ice covered the sea near Nome generally from early November to late May. The ice is crucial to the sea life that is central to the people who live there...

Over past centuries, the temperature gradient at the edge of the sea ice near Nome was a signal to marine animals that food was plentiful. Melting ice provides nutrients that fuel plankton blooms when sunlight is sufficient for photosynthesis. This ice melt during warmer, sunny days provides a banquet of plankton for small fish, shellfish and baleen whales. Those whales and other marine creatures typically followed the retreating ice, feasting as they hugged the Alaska coastline.

Now whales often show up emaciated because the timing and extent of the ice melt has changed. The system is out of sync. The ice melt happens too early in the season, when shorter days and lack of sunlight are insufficient to nourish the algae blooms.

What’s also troubling is the recent discovery of enormous cyst beds, the seedlike dormant resting stages of ocean algae, in ocean sediments in the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait. Unlike the nourishing blooms that bring life to the waters of Nome, these cysts can hatch into toxic algal blooms when the ocean warms. The toxins produced by these algae were recently detected at low levels in over a dozen species of marine mammals throughout Alaska, many of which are consumed by Native Alaskans. These algal toxins were also identified in dead sea birds — murres, fulmars and storm petrels — found during an unusual die-off in Alaska beginning in 2015.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/climate-change-ocean-Arctic.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2019 at 12:32 PM, Vice-Regent said:

Contrarily you could take the Bill Gates route which is focus on rapid Carbon Sequestration and Nuclear Power. The budget for these sectors should be at minimum around 2 trillion each year (500 billion for R&D and 1.5 trillion for infrastructure development). What I don't understand is the reluctance to throw all of your chips onto the table in a dire situation. In a system like Capitalism this will never happen due to the inherent risk in the for-profit financial model.

We should be scaling down our overhead across the board. Our housing should be efficient and affordable. We should be reducing transportation, grounding all non-essential aviation, etc.

The enemy is the for-profit model, i.e. capitalism. Something like the above could be accomplished in a technocratic civilization. (by necessity demanding the cessation of democracy)

The enemy is not capitalism.  In fact, that's where the money is that is needed to address climate change.  Climate change shouldn't be a political pawn to achieve ones political goals.  You're going to need the capital that capitalism generates to invest in sequestration or nuclear power.  Provide enough incentive and the market will provide everything in a rapid time frame.  Politicize it and you have what we currently have.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MetHerb said:

The enemy is not capitalism.  In fact, that's where the money is that is needed to address climate change.  Climate change shouldn't be a political pawn to achieve ones political goals.  You're going to need the capital that capitalism generates to invest in sequestration or nuclear power.  Provide enough incentive and the market will provide everything in a rapid time frame.  Politicize it and you have what we currently have.

Capitalism isn't the solution in that way, either though - 

The solution is, don't burn fossil fuels, period.  Nothing else.  If an economic system is footed on Oil, that oil cannot be burned - literally as in..set on fire. It's just that simple. 

If we can get to a reality where the provisions necessary to feed and cloth, and warm ... 8 billion souls and counting, takes place without burning fossil fuels - great!  It doesn't matter whether the organization of society  ( economic engine ) into ways and means that proficiently disseminate, is footed in oil, agrarian-base ... pixie dust, so long as whatever those means are, are not doing what we are doing to the planet [ apparently ]. 

You didn't ask... but, one of the fundamental flaws of the denier frame-work is:  

If something of uncertainty is causing a problem in a system, why does that mean one should keep doing anything before figuring out what that is?   It's just laughably illogical - what's your point or goal in denial?  But.. around and around we go.  This denier crap is either that, illogical ( and can be caused by incapability to register the problem intellectually... ), or, is flat out immoral.  In either circumstance, the denier is incapable of parsing out that question, and so there can be no winner in the debate.  

One side is right - the other side can't accept it.  And that's it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Silver Meteor said:

Understanding the Paris Accord:

 

https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1176506786414825473

 

It should be noted that the above is political commentary by a Senate candidate. Policy and political discussions related to climate change are not necessarily the same thing as scientific discussions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 9:21 AM, MetHerb said:

The enemy is not capitalism.  In fact, that's where the money is that is needed to address climate change.  Climate change shouldn't be a political pawn to achieve ones political goals.  You're going to need the capital that capitalism generates to invest in sequestration or nuclear power.  Provide enough incentive and the market will provide everything in a rapid time frame.  Politicize it and you have what we currently have.

IMO, markets will need to be leveraged, not supplanted, to offer perhaps the highest probability that the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is met. Policy that aims to supplant markets will probably run aground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, markets will need to be leveraged, not supplanted, to offer perhaps the highest probability that the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is met. Policy that aims to supplant markets will probably run aground.

A strong enough carbon tax would quickly put us on a much better trajectory, been a no-brainer for decades. Much better to tax carbon than income.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

A strong enough carbon tax would quickly put us on a much better trajectory, been a no-brainer for decades. Much better to tax carbon than income.

I agree. Such a consumption tax would generate revenue and it would have the desired impact of reducing carbon-intensive consumption.

The CBO provided a summary related to a potential $25 per ton carbon tax last year: https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2018/54821

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MetHerb said:

Why not the opposite?  A tax credit for limiting carbon use.  It would provide added incentive beyond the expense of using carbon.

The big challenge for the tax credit would be how one would demonstrate that they qualified. It's easier to tax consumption than expect people to save receipts, etc., to demonstrate that they refrained from consuming certain products.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2019 at 9:21 AM, MetHerb said:

The enemy is not capitalism.  In fact, that's where the money is that is needed to address climate change.  Climate change shouldn't be a political pawn to achieve ones political goals.  You're going to need the capital that capitalism generates to invest in sequestration or nuclear power.  Provide enough incentive and the market will provide everything in a rapid time frame.  Politicize it and you have what we currently have.

The problem is unregulated capitalism which results in oligarchs.  The fossil fuel industry is a cartel run by oligarchs.  This excellent book by Rachel Maddow outlines the connections between Putin and the fossil fuel industry.

 

You might find this book interesting in how it ties everything together.  I'm considering making it the subject of a future podcast.

An eye-opening book (Blow Out) was written by Rachel Maddow which shows some of these connections as well as the connection between Russia and the fossil fuel industry.  It all makes sense when you consider how lenient Trump has been with the fossil fuel industry and his cozy relationship with Trump.  It also makes sense when you think of Russian interference and how Facebook looked the other way when they were being paid in rubles for ads on their site.  Companies like Facebook and Google greatly contribute to the problems of dark money in politics- that's why they are allowed to get away with so much invasive behavior (for which they get fined for in the billions by the EU.)

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766374077/it-all-ties-rachel-maddow-says-of-oil-and-gas-russia-and-democracy-in-blowout

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/magazine/rachel-maddow-trump.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/the-root-of-all-evils-the-fossil-fuel-industry-says-rachel-maddow/2019/10/03/14273cd6-de1a-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

 

And since this ties in with Russian oligarchs, this is a worthy read too.

https://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research/
https://bulletin.represent.us/american-government-isnt-democracy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2019 at 9:53 PM, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, markets will need to be leveraged, not supplanted, to offer perhaps the highest probability that the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is met. Policy that aims to supplant markets will probably run aground.

the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry needs to come to an end and (in a larger issue that also covers the chemical industry and the dangerous additives and pesticides we are exposed to and in our food that are banned by the EU), we need to get dark money out of politics altogether.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2019 at 9:51 PM, donsutherland1 said:

It should be noted that the above is political commentary by a Senate candidate. Policy and political discussions related to climate change are not necessarily the same thing as scientific discussions.

I saw Kerry on Face the Nation recently talk about how the Paris accord doesn't go far enough.  We need to have two thirds lower emissions by 2030 and achieve net carbon zero by 2050.  Car makers are starting to do their part by shifting their production lines to electric and hybrid vehicles but the current administration, which is basically a puppet of the fossil fuel industry is trying to punish them for moving away from fossil fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2019 at 2:12 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

This is extremely important frame-work exposure of the crisis...  Species migration will/has be a Humanity issue just as is for any other life form that necessarily moves from areas of harm to areas less so .. impelled to do so by their very instilled/instinct to survive.  

The destablization of the Baltic region and the recent refugee flux event over the last 10 years, was not just geopolitically motivated - as some scholarly papers available to general consumption of the web-browser discuss, and are available if one bothers to go and find. They were experiencing ecological failures on a multi-year scale, already on-going, such that the fateful arrival of the aforementioned duress becomes more like 'straw that broke the camels back.' 

It is what it is in a vacuum but .. part of the facets of the culture anti-CC narrative is the lack of culpable evidence that it is effecting/affecting - when there are evidence of this and have been for a decade or more in actuality and needs to be presented and spotlighted. 

I find air pollution also steadily getting worse, with higher humidity and asthma rates going up and many more "bad air quality" days then before.  I also found this:

Air pollution linked to increases in violent criminal behavior

More information: Jesse Burkhardt et al. The effect of pollution on crime: Evidence from data on particulate matter and ozone, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2019.102267

Jesse Burkhardt et al. The relationship between monthly air pollution and violent crime across the United States, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy (2019). DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1630014

Jesse D. Berman et al. Acute Air Pollution Exposure and the Risk of Violent Behavior in the United States, Epidemiology (2019). DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001085

Journal information: Epidemiology 

Provided by Colorado State University 

 https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-air-pollution-linked-violent-criminal.html

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-exposure-air-pollution-violent-crime.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry needs to come to an end and (in a larger issue that also covers the chemical industry and the dangerous additives and pesticides we are exposed to and in our food that are banned by the EU), we need to get dark money out of politics altogether.

 

Yes. I agree. It should be noted that subsidies can skew things toward the activity that is being subsidized. Elimination or phase-out of the subsidies (the latter might be the easier policy path, but less effective climate change mitigation path) would be beneficial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I saw Kerry on Face the Nation recently talk about how the Paris accord doesn't go far enough.  We need to have two thirds lower emissions by 2030 and achieve net carbon zero by 2050.  Car makers are starting to do their part by shifting their production lines to electric and hybrid vehicles but the current administration, which is basically a puppet of the fossil fuel industry is trying to punish them for moving away from fossil fuels.

Some climate scientists have calculated that the commitments made in the Paris Agreement only go about 50% of the way toward what's necessary to avoid warming above 1.5°C.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Some climate scientists have calculated that the commitments made in the Paris Agreement only go about 50% of the way toward what's necessary to avoid warming above 1.5°C.

The question/plea, at least in our nation, stands; when will all of us be willing to sacrifice/suffer for the greater good of every one of us? As always .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rclab said:

The question/plea, at least in our nation, stands; when will all of us be willing to sacrifice/suffer for the greater good of every one of us? As always .....

Such a philosophy is at odds with Capitalism. I know I will keep hammering this idea until we see the changes required to avert this catastrophe.

The only problem I am beginning to encounter is the fact that anthropogenic global warming may be unavoidable (regardless of the economic system in place) but the extinction event is not a certainty. Important distinction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Such a philosophy is at odds with Capitalism. I know I will keep hammering this idea until we see the changes required to avert this catastrophe.

The only problem I am beginning to encounter is the fact that anthropogenic global warming may be unavoidable (regardless of the economic system in place) but the extinction event is not a certainty. Important distinction

My long term optimism is not as robust. “Not a certainty” well, may your fine statement be heard by whomever or whatever gives us comfort. As always .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rclab said:

My long term optimism is not as robust. “Not a certainty” well, may your fine statement be heard by whomever or whatever gives us comfort. As always .....

Add some mythology to the story you want to tell yourself. I find hell to be an appropriate analogy for where we are going and this is something we have collectively set out to become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Add some mythology to the story you want to tell yourself. I find hell to be an appropriate analogy for where we are going and this is something we have collectively set out to become.

 

40 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Add some mythology to the story you want to tell yourself. I find hell to be an appropriate analogy for where we are going and this is something we have collectively set out to become.

 

40 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Add some mythology to the story you want to tell yourself. I find hell to be an appropriate analogy for where we are going and this is something we have collectively set out to become.

“Hell” ah mythology is no stranger to you either. As always ....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A climate change denial website posted a story about Mototaka Nakamura who authored a book rejecting climate change. In part, the article states:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

Nakamura's argument does not hold up.

1. The notion that 1980 was a magical point where temperature data suddenly became trustworthy has no basis in fact. Even if one relied strictly on the instrument record, the instrument record extends into the early 20th century and even middle to latter part of the 19th century over much of the world.  One isn't dealing with "only a small part of the earth" where temperatures were observed with "accuracy and frequency."

2. It seems that Nakamura is largely or wholly unfamiliar with the paleoclimate record, or worse, dismisses it out of hand. Multiple proxies corroborate one another and point to the anomalous warming that has occurred particularly from the late 20th century to the present. One is dealing with tree rings, ice cores, corals, and sediments, among other proxies.

3. The physical properties of carbon dioxide have been known since the 19th century. Data for natural forcings e.g., solar irradiance exist. The recent temperature trend has decoupled from the trend in the natural forcings. When the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is considered, one has a very close match to the observed temperature trend.

Nakamura has impressive credentials. But, it appears that he is unwilling or unable to take an objective perspective of the climate change issue. At the same time, he subjectively dismisses the credibility of the temperature data that exists (while imposing a magical "1980" point where the data became useful) while largely or wholly ignoring paleoclimate data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Sonja Gupta recently put up an op ed on CNN ... wanna side four months ago at this point?  But it fascinatingly discussed the untenable nature of Global Warming .. which probably the difficulty in accepting  AGW is thus directly-causally related/precipitating. 

"...Human beings are just not wired to understand global warming..." 

This may or may not be true, but I wonder if what this Nakamura is writing is what happens when we mash-up greater than average I.Q. and mental faculties with that untenability - you get this sort of product.  Wrong ... yet well-delivered, and thus what's ( interestingly untenable) is how the lay-person's inability to appropriately think critically, on-the-fly, when his information passes inside.  There are a lot of dubious disconnects in these statements - ...it's like instead of conflating ( the usual mistake in the denier narratives/mantra), he takes the opposite tact and well ... these systems are less effectually influencing one another.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Dr. Sonja Gupta recently put up an op ed on CNN ... wanna side four months ago at this point?  But it fascinatingly discussed the untenable nature of Global Warming .. which probably the difficulty in accepting  AGW is thus directly-causally related/precipitating. 

"...Human beings are just not wired to understand global warming..." 

This may or may not be true, but I wonder if what this Nakamura is writing is what happens when we mash-up greater than average I.Q. and mental faculties with that untenability - you get this sort of product.  Wrong ... yet well-delivered, and thus what's ( interestingly untenable) is how the lay-person's inability to appropriately think critically, on-the-fly, when his information passes inside.  There are a lot of dubious disconnects in these statements - ...it's like instead of conflating ( the usual mistake in the denier narratives/mantra), he takes the opposite tact and well ... these systems are less effectually influencing one another.  

 

While I agree with the literature in psychology related to cognitive biases and decision making, a subset of which relates to climate change denial (e.g., motivated reasoning), one would expect that a competent scientist would be in a stronger position to analyze and assess data objectively. That at least some can't likely demonstrates the power of cognitive biases and the barriers to objectivity that they present.

He has dispensed with objectivity. Sustaining his belief depends on rejecting the enormous body of evidence that now makes the argument for anthropogenic climate change unequivocal from an objective, purely evidence-informed path. Thus, he greatly discounts the quality of the instrument temperature record, embraces a "magical" starting point (1980), ignores paleoclimate data and, in doing so, implicitly denies the expertise and knowledge developed by a wide range of scientists in a broad slice of science.

Another explanation may also be involved: shifting attention from his own forecasting failure. Upon further research, it turns out that back in 2013, he forecast that the Northern Hemisphere would begin cooling in 2015. So, 2015 should have been cooler than 2014 according to his forecast.

For purposes of comparison, the 2013 Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (GISS) was +0.81°C and in 2014 it was +0.92°C.

Since then, the annual Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies have been:

2015: +1.18°C
2016: +1.31°C
2017: +1.18°C
2018: +1.04°C
2019: +1.18°C (January-August)

During the January 2015 through August 2019 period, just 3 of 54 months have had a monthly anomaly that was cooler than the 2014 average while 43/54 months have had an anomaly of +1.00°C or above.

IMO, just as the field of economics would benefit from a mechanism for tracking and evaluating forecasts and outcomes, the same applies here. There's nothing wrong with a failed forecast, as analysis of causes can lead to better future forecasts. Doubling down, though, is typically counterproductive, as it ignores the source(s) of the error. In this case, it seems that rather than trying to understand the cause of his failed Northern Hemisphere cooling forecast (growing anthropogenic forcing), he has decided to question the entire understanding of climate science.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...