Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Recently we saw the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 5th report on climate change ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ). While some agree with it - most scientists do (1) - others - like the industry lobby- completely rubbishes it like this one:
Some scientists - supported by the industrial lobby too don't agree with it. They say: The UN-promoted theory about the missing warming being hidden somewhere in the ocean is really an admission that its climate models do not accurately simulate natural internal variability in the system.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scien... ( this report is definitely written by the Industry lobby and the Republican lobby).
It is known that 'dark money' supports climate change denial effort. A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder.
An interesting blog by a science communicator says scientists have been framed and global warming hasn't been slowed down like the skeptics and deniers say! Read it here: http://talkingscience.weebly.com/1/post/2013/12/you-have-been-frame...!
The author of this blog made some very good points.
And this blog on SA
However, this topic really is all confusing to a layman with so much of contradictory news making the rounds.
Well, who should we believe when so many reports and articles flooding the media with contradictory arguments?
The studies are still going on and nobody knows for sure the real causes for the climate change at the global level. But still local changes can effect you!
I will try to help you in coming to your own conclusion
Okay, imagine these two situations:
(1)You are on a holiday and go to a forest. You feel happy and relieved for getting out of the smoke you are inhaling in your city. You can breathe easily now, feel relaxed and more energetic. Your young son and old mother get relief from their asthmatic conditions. You can see the pollution markers - lichens- growing everywhere. You don't see them in your city! You see several unknown birds singing and chirping in a forest. The water tastes so different and sweet. This is a fact. I myself faced this situation and most of you must have been too. Now want to know the reason why? Because you get clean and fresh natural air in this place. You get pure water in the forest. The Nature is untouched by human beings here. Well, almost!
(2) Now you return back from your holiday tour. You are in your home city. You definitely feel the heat difference, the air quality, and the resultant mood difference. You don't see several birds here. You will notice the smog, the thick black water flowing down the road after a spell of rain different as compared to the brown or transparent water you saw in the forest or a water fall you loved there. You feel breathless and you again start hearing the wheezing sound while your mother tries to breathe. Your water tastes rancid! Why? Because we are interfering with Nature and polluting it in the city! You can smell some chemicals in the air while rain starts coming down slowly? Acid rain? Exactly!
So?! Do you think I am lying when I say climate science is relevant or scientists are lying when they say climate change is happening?
Climate change is not only happening at the global level, but also at the local level, effecting each and every living being on this planet.
It is happening alright and the proof is before you! Forget about the IPCC report or what others say contradicting it. Feel the difference for yourself and come to your conclusions. And then help save the planet.
World is cold to Global Warming
World is cold to Global Warming
Authint Mail |
October 06, 2013 - 12:18 PM |
Compared to the heady days in 2007 when US climate campaigner Al Gore and the UN's panel of climate scientists shared the Nobel Peace Prize, the risks of global warming may be greater but the stars preaching the message have faded.
With many governments focused on tackling short-term economic growth, the shift reinforces what former UN secretary general Kofi Annan has sometimes called a "shocking lack of leadership" in confronting long-term global warming.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-vice-president Gore, issued a report last week in Stockholm about mounting risks of global warming, from heat waves to rising sea levels.
"We need new voices," said Jennifer Morgan, of the World Resources Institute think-tank in Washington. "Hopefully the IPCC will inspire leadership, from the mom to the business leader, to the mayor to the head of state."
It is a sign of the times that some of the world's most powerful figures such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel a former environment minister US President Barack Obama or Chinese Premier Li Keqiang appear to have put the issue on the backburner to focus on domestic economic issues.
Even former Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed, who made global headlines in 2009 with the world's first underwater cabinet meeting to highlight the threat of rising sea levels to his small islands, was forced from power in domestic turmoil. He is now seeking a comeback.
Much of the 'glamour' has gone since Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian chair of the IPCC, and Gore proudly showed off the Nobel gold medals in 2007, a time when firm global action on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases seemed feasible.
The problem proved intractable in the financial crisis. A UN summit in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to work out a deal, and many voters may simply have tired of hearing of global warming. Governments have now agreed to work out a UN accord in 2015.
Source: Indian Express
Very relevant !
Your obstinacy denial of evidence selfishly
threatens the rest of us - a scientist's reply to a denier
FROM SCIENCE…TO ART…TO HYPOTHETICALS
The new RCPs are not projections, probabilities, prophecies or pathways – they might possibly be potentialities.
"Non-biodegradable waste absorbs heat which results in rise in temperature and melting of glaciers. Formation of new lakes has posed a threat of glacial lake outburst flood. No one knows when the lakes would burst in next 20, 30 or 50 years.
Acid Maps Reveal Worst of Climate Change
Short-Term Gratification Proves an Obstacle to Climate Change Progress
Social science suggests misunderstanding and shortsightedness prevent stronger efforts to combat climate change
Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide
Wet areas get wetter, dry areas get drier, storm tracks move toward the poles
There is good and bad news for climate scientists. The good news: Most Americans (79 percent) say that science and scientists are invaluable.
The bad news: On controversial topics such as climate change, a significant number of Americans do not use science to inform their views. Instead, they use political orientation and ideology, which are reflected in their level of education, to decide whether humans are driving planetary warming.
This comes from a public opinion poll released yesterday by Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The poll captured a significant split between what scientists and the general public believe on climate change.
10 Countries Where Climate Change Kills The Most People
How Much Nature Do We Have to Use?
Tropical forests may be absorbing far more carbon dioxide in response to its rising atmospheric levels than many scientists thought, a new NASA-led study says.
Tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide out of a total global absorption of 2.5 billion - more than what is absorbed by forests in Canada, Siberia and other northern regions, called boreal forests.
“This is good news because uptake in boreal forests is already slowing, while tropical forests may continue to take up carbon for many years,” said David Schimel of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere during photosynthesis.
In case the rate of absorption slows down, the rate of global warming would speed up.
The study is the first to devise a way to make comparisons of carbon dioxide estimates from many sources at different scales.
Researchers made use of atmospheric models, satellite images and data from experimental forest plots.
“Until our analysis, no one had successfully completed a global reconciliation of information about carbon dioxide effects from the atmospheric, forestry and modelling communities,” said Joshua Fisher of JPL and co-author.
As human-caused emissions add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, forests across the globe are using it to grow faster, reducing the amount that stays airborne.
This effect is called carbon fertilisation.
“All else being equal, the effect is stronger at higher temperatures, meaning it will be higher in the tropics than in the boreal forests,” Schimel pointed out.
The study appeared online in the journal Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.
Hear what 259 world experts said about the physical science of climate change?
Max Greenberg, Denise Robbins, and Shauna Theel of Media Matters closely evaluated the media’s distortion of the facts between August 1 and October 1, 2013, the dates when the UN report on climate change appeared:
Half of the print media reported manmade warming falsely. Only 3% of the world’s climate scientists do not believe in climate change. However, over a quarter of the reports from major news outlets (Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Bloomberg News) during the study period were either neutral on the subject or quoted doubters (those who don’t believe climate change is occurring/don’t believe it is manmade). As many as half of the people quoted by The Wall Street Journal discredited the views of almost 100% of all scientists. Four other major print outlets–The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, and USA TODAY–managed to cover the UN report with accurate balance.
Climate doubters reported in the media were more likely to lack scientific credentials than those who acknowledged climate change. About 81% of the “experts” quoted who denied anthropogenic climate change had zero background in climate science. This statistic means that four of every five skeptical faces you’ve seen on TV or encountered online or in the newspaper have not really spent time looking into Mother Nature’s recent changes of life. The 81% you see saying “no” are mostly uneducated politicians, bloggers, and media people. Almost 60% of the people in the media who say humans are implicated in global warming are actual scientists.
CBS represented doubters six times more often than doubters actually exist in the climate science community. Of the people CBS quoted or televised, 20% were climate doubters. (For example, CBS Evening News gave the head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Benny Peiser–whom the network described as a “skeptic”–equal weight to a bona fide climate scientist.) ABC, NBC, and CNN did not include false balance in their coverage.
Doubters dominated on Fox, and the majority were unqualified. In the Fox coverage, 69% of guest “experts” cast doubt on climate science. About three of every four doubters Fox hosted had no academic qualifications in climate science at all.
The mainstream media used concocted “think tanks” in their reports instead of interviewing genuine experts. Greenberg and coauthors cite the example of the Heartland Institute and skewed coverage of its climate change bias by the Washington Post, Bloomberg News, and Fox News.
The Washington Post seems to be doublethinking Heartland. The paper directly compared a professionally unreviewed and controversial Heartland Institute report to the rigorously researched AR5. WaPo described Heartland mildly as a “nonprofit group funded by individuals and corporations” without revealing the radically conservative and political nature of these connections. The Post directly quoted its president, Joseph Bast (a nonscientist): “Any warming that may be due to human greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be so small as to be invisible.”
Yet the Post had previously reported a billboard posted by Heartland that compared those who believe in global warming (including 97% of scientists, as noted earlier) to serial killer and domestic terrorist Ted Kaczynski–the Unabomber. Also, the Post noted several apparently inappropriate grants to Heartland ($736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006, and $25,000 in 2011 from foundations affiliated with Koch Industries, which has “substantial oil and energy holdings”). Bloomberg News and Fox News also mainstreamed Heartland president Bast, who ranks with Judith Curry and Willie Soon (a scientist among the 3%) as one of the most frequently quoted climate change deniers in the media study.
Another Bloomberg News “expert” doubter, “toxic industry” advocate Marc Morano, runs a climate denial blog featuring arguments that often run counter to those of the overwhelming scientific majority. Morano’s blog is sponsored by the libertarian Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and funded by ExxonMobil, Chevron, and the anonymous Donors Trust. Bloomberg grossly understated the Morano blog’s position, calling it merely “skeptical of climate change.” Senior New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin characterized the same blog as “toxic and divisive.” In May 2013, Bloomberg neutrally presented Morano’s absurd claim that catastrophically high carbon dioxide levels should be “welcomed” because “plants are going to be happy.”
Greenberg, Robbins, and Theel’s analysis of climate change in the media included any article, op-ed, editorial, or segment, as well as any mention longer than one sentence, that referred to the latest UN report. For more on the complex measurements the authors undertook and their media examples, see the Media Matters report and its section on methodology.
Maybe everyone missed this incredibly important climate report because its official name is a tad unwieldy: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [usually known as "IPCC"] Fifth Assessment Report. The official abbreviation for this publication is “AR5.” Only the Summary for Policymakers [SPM] of the Working Group I [WGI] contribution to the report [WGI AR5]–the Physical Science Basis–appears in the AR5 material released to date. The panel published this first installment of AR5 at the IPCC Working Group I 12th Meeting in Stockholm during the week of September 23-26, 2013. We’ll see the results from the other two major working groups at intervals during 2014, and a synthesis report from Copenhagen the week of October 27-31 next year. It will NOT be coming from the IPFCCC. Confused? You won’t be if you pay close attention to the professional summary video on YouTube by the team of 259 international experts. The music’s a little imposing, but you’ll find your nine minutes very well spent.
Here is an interesting article that says scientists have been framed and global warming hasn't been actually slowed down!
You have been framed
A relevant article:
The Climate Context for India’s Deadly Heat Wave
The broiling heat wave that suffocated parts of India with temperatures regularly above 110°F at the end of May — and killed around 2,000 people in just a few days according to estimates — has finally waned. But the deadly episode has focused world attention on the plight of vulnerable populations during such extreme events and raised questions about how to better prepare for such disasters when the climate could be tipping toward more of them.
While India is no stranger to heat waves this time of year, before the monsoon kicks in and brings relief with its rains, this event was notable because it has been so lethal so quickly. The severity of the event came from a deadly combination of meteorology, possibly with a boost from climate change, and highly vulnerable populations.
Such oppressive heat waves are likely to become more common in a warming world. That is one of the more robust links in climate science, but teasing out such a connection with specific, local events can be difficult, as a new analysis from scientists working with Climate Central, as part of its World Weather Attribution program, shows. The program combines observational data, output from multiple models, peer-reviewed research, and on-the-ground reports to more quickly analyze extreme weather events. This analysis found some suggestions that extreme heat waves in this region are more common than they once were, but more research is needed to firm up such a link.
Beginning in mid-May, parts of the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana ( my home states) — home to about 80 million people — and other nearby areas saw temperatures soar up to about 120°F during the days and linger in the 80s and 90s during nights, leaving little chance for the millions of residents of the region to gain relief. Those who work primarily outdoors, such as construction workers, along with the very young and old, and the poorest are at particular peril during such events, having little recourse for relief from air conditioning or plentiful clean drinking water.
It is expected that extreme heat waves will become more common worldwide as a rising average global temperature, which has increased by 1.6°F since the beginning of the 20th century, tips the odds more in their favor.
Because this link is one of the most robust between climate change and extreme weather the budding field of extreme event attribution has focused much attention on trying to pinpoint what role warming may have played in particular events. One of the first attribution studies came in 2004, and found that warming made the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 and killed some 70,000 people at least twice as likely. A study published just last year found that now such a heat wave is 10 times as likely to happen as it was just a decade ago.
Scientists working with Climate Central have taken a preliminary look at how warming may be impacting the likelihood of heat waves in this part of India, with mixed results. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, a climate researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), examined temperature observations in the area going back to 1975 to see if he could find any trends in heat waves. While the average temperature for May had increased over that time, the temperatures of the warmest days and nights had not.
Why one measure showed an increase but the other didn’t isn’t yet known, though van Oldenborgh raised the possibilities that the cooling effect of air pollution or irrigation could be masking any warming signal.
“Other factors than global warming play a role in some areas,” he said. It could also be some other issue with the data that van Oldenborgh has yet to uncover.
If air pollution is playing a role, it is unlikely to hide the background warming signal into the future, especially if efforts are made to reduce such pollution.
Because extreme events, by definition, are rare, there is less observational data to go on to determine how more or less likely warming has made a particular event, said Friederike Otto of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute. Because of this, the WWA also plans to evaluate future extreme events with climate models that will compare how often heat waves happen in a global climate with or without warming.