Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication
Climate science and its relevance
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:
http://www.naturalnews.com/042304_UN_climate_change_report_selectiv...
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.
( http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-money-funds-c... )
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
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusi...
says:
Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer
Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds They Believe Conspiracy Theories
The paper was sound but a libel threat apparently exerted pressure on management at Frontiers in Psychology, suggesting a blow to academic freedomHowever, 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.
"Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."
- Cree proverb
What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true? - Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland ( On climate science predictions) - just because the models are not very accurate?--
Views: 1105
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa on
-
I think we can say all debates are framed, and usually according to a position. My point is that scientists tend to answer questions without taking into account the frame of the question and whether, scientifically, it is correct.
With climate science, sceptics have created two incorrect frames:
* That global average temperatures are clearly representative of what worldwide global warming is doing at a single point in time and
* that temperatures gradients should rise in parallel with the rise of Co2 in the atmosphere to be valid
Neither statement is true.
Global average temperatures are only useful in terms of long-term trends.
But in responding to questions about global warming and average temperatures, scientists have not queried the frame of the question, which explicitly states that global average temperatures are a clear and immediate indicator of climate change. As a result they have found themselves in an invidious position of treating these temperature records like they are a direct representation of global warming and then building a range of vague responses around the recent slowing in the rise of these temperature graphs. This has allowed doubt to be cast on anthropogenic global warming.
Why do I think this question is not reframed by advocates rather than skeptics? Advocates would not re-frame a debate in a manner that made it more difficult for them. And among the climate science fraternity, there is a clear recognition that global average temps are only one indicator and not nearly as powerful as other indicators (decline in ice, ocean heat content, cooling of the stratosphere, increases in record heat....and the list goes on).
Within the scientific community and according to every national scientific institution, worldwide, there is no longer any doubt about human activity contributing to global warming.
You might be interested to know that I personally and many of our scientists have over time engaged with sceptics but decided it was not worth our time after many fruitless hours because these people are not sceptics - they are deniers. The "intentional" lack of understanding and what passes for science in these circles clearly reflects the position of climate deniers is ideological, not scientific.
I found it interesting when they are called out as deniers, they try to reframe it as a personal insult that compares them to holocaust deniers. It is in fact a fair description of their position as it was with AIDS deniers and those today who deny the benefits of vaccination. They deny the very clear science.
I suspect we will be forced to adapt rather than actually do something about the problem but adaption will be expensive and potentially dangerous if we do not stop putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This latest paper from my unit - http://www.climatescience.org.au/content/680-solution-cloud-riddle-... - which I have pointed out on another thread, gives me grave concerns whether we will even be able to adapt.
It suggests that climate change will not be our grandchildren's problem but our own and certainly our childrens. If our climate changes at this speed, then we could be in real trouble.
As a final note, it strikes me from your comment that you may not be completely convinced by the scientific position around global warming. Could you explain to me where your doubts and concerns lie?
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&di... -
-
-
Climate change: Rainforest absorption of CO2 becoming erratic
For each 1C rise in temperature, tropical regions now release about 2 billion extra tonnes of carbon-containing gases
Tropical rainforests are becoming less able to cope with rising global temperatures according to a study that has looked back over the way they have responded to variations in temperature in the past half a century.
For each 1C rise in temperature, tropical regions now release about 2 billion extra tonnes of carbon-containing gases – such as carbon dioxide and methane – into the atmosphere, compared to the same amount of tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s, the study found.Rising levels of man-made carbon dioxide could stimulate the growth of tropical vegetation by providing them with extra “carbon fertiliser” but scientists believe this beneficial effect is probably being outweighed by the detrimental impact on forest growth caused by the extra heat and drought resulting from higher CO2 concentrations.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-rainforest... -
-
-
-
-
-
The global warming “pause” which some climate sceptics have taken as evidence that climate change is a myth could in fact be explained by a dramatic increase in the amount of heat being taken out of the atmosphere by the Pacific Ocean, a study has found
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cooler-pacific-is-causing...An international team of researchers has calculated that the stronger trade winds blowing from South America to Australia have had the net effect of cooling surface temperatures by a global average of between 0.1C and 0.2C, which would be enough to account for the apparent hiatus in global average temperatures over the past 15 years.
The scientists warn however that the cooling capacity of the Pacific Ocean is not expected to continue much beyond 2020, when global surface temperatures are expected to start rising again rapidly as a result of increasing concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide.
-
-
-
Volcanic eruptions ‘contributed to global warming pause’, scientists claim
The impact of volcanic eruptions on global warming could provide a new explanation for the so-called “pause” used by sceptics to deny climate change is happening, scientists have said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/volcanic-er...
-
-
-
What is science doing to address climate change?
http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_02_23/Climate-change-disco-au...--
Fox News has no shame: Easily duped wingnuts spout phony science and climate-change lies
There's a new big lie about global temperatures, and you'll never believe which "news" network is talking it up
Every few months, when climate change deniers decide they’ve come up with an all-new reason to convince themselves that global warming is all a big hoax, we like to take a look at whatever the latest scam is that they are propagating, either because they are part of the effort to help out the fossil-fuel industry, or simply because they enjoy being their brainwashed and/or incurious little tools.
Back in 2013 these stooges were promoting the phony notion that “Arctic ice has grown to a record level!” It hadn’t. After that debacle, they claimed UN scientists had found their predictions of warming were off by 50 percent or more. They weren’t. More recently, they were pushing the false claim that the globe has been cooling ever since 1998. It hasn’t been. And, of course, when all else failed, they could always fall back on their old standby: weaning ourselves from dangerous fossil fuels won’t make any difference anyway because China would never do the same. But, of course, China is now doing so at a rate that should embarrass these jackasses. But it won’t. Because they are never embarrassed about being wrong.
So, with 2014 recently clocking in as the hottest year for the planet on record, according to every major world agency that measures such things, and with 13 of the hottest years on record all falling within the past 15 years, these clowns are getting pretty desperate for something — anything — to use to keep the denialist scam going on behalf of the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.
The latest such scam, helpfully propagated on several Fox “News” shows last week, is that the so-called “scientists” have been caught red-handed in the act of “lying” about raw temperature data! That’s right! They have been manipulating the data to exaggerate the extent of global warming!
Except, of course, they haven’t, and they aren’t…
read more here:
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/19/fox_news_has_no_shame_easily_duped_...
-
-
-
How Money Changes Climate Debate
Why have conservative groups been so successful in casting doubt on global warming?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-money-changes-climate... -
-
-
Autism and intellectual disability incidence linked with environmental factors
An analysis of 100 million U.S. medical records reveals that autism and intellectual disability (ID) rates are correlated at the county level with incidence of genital malformations in newborn males, an indicator of possible congenital exposure to harmful environmental factors such as pesticides.Autism rates—after adjustment for gender, ethnic, socioeconomic and geopolitical factors—jump by 283 percent for every one-percent increase in frequency of malformations in a county. Intellectual disability rates increase 94 percent. Slight increases in autism and ID rates are also seen in wealthier and more urban counties.
The study, published by University of Chicago scientists in the March 13 issue of PLOS Computational Biology, confirms the dramatic effect of diagnostic standards. Incidence rates for autism and ID on a per-person basis decrease by roughly 99 percent in states with stronger regulations on diagnosis of these disorders.
“Autism appears to be strongly correlated with rate of congenital malformations of the genitals in males across the country,” said study author Andrey Rzhetsky, professor of genetic medicine and human genetics. “This gives an indicator of environmental load and the effect is surprisingly strong.”
Although autism and intellectual disability have genetic components, environmental causes are thought to play a role. To identify potential environmental links, Rzhetsky and his team analyzed an insurance claims dataset that covered nearly one third of the U.S. population. They used congenital malformations of the reproductive system in males as an indicator of parental exposure to toxins.
Male fetuses are particularly sensitive to toxins such as environmental lead, sex hormone analogs, medications and other synthetic molecules. Parental exposure to these toxins is thought to explain a large portion of congenital reproductive malformations, such as micropenis, hypospadias (urethra on underside of the penis), undescended testicles and others.
The researchers created a statistical baseline frequency of autism and ID across the country. They then looked at the actual rates of these disorders, county by county. Deviations from the baseline are interpreted as resulting from local causes. Factors such as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic groups and geopolitical statuses were analyzed and corrected for.
The team found that every one-percent increase in malformations in a county was associated with a 283-percent increase in autism and a 94-percent increase in ID in that same county. Almost all areas with higher rates of autism also had higher rates of ID, which the researchers believe corroborates the presence of environmental factors. In addition, they found that male children with autism are almost six times more likely to have congenital genital malformations. Female incidence was linked with increased malformation rates, but weakly so. A county-by-county map of autism and ID incidence above or below the predicted baseline for the entire U.S. is included in the study.
Non-reproductive congenital malformations and viral infections in males were also associated with double digit increases in autism and ID rates. Additionally, income appeared to have a weak effect—every additional $1,000 of income above county average was correlated with around a three percent increase in autism and ID rates. An increased percentage of urban population in a county also showed a weak increase in rates.
The most striking negative effect was state regulation. State-mandated diagnosis of autism by a clinician for consideration in special education was linked with around a whopping 99 percent decrease in the rate of incidence for autism and ID. Certain ethnic backgrounds, such as Pacific Islanders, had significantly lower risk for both diseases.
While the effect of vaccines was not analyzed as part of this study, Rzhetsky notes that the geographic clustering of autism and ID rates is evidence that if vaccines have a role, it’s a very weak one as vaccinations are given uniformly across the US.
Rzhetsky acknowledges that there are potential confounders to the study; for example, ease of access to data could differ between counties, or uneven genetic distribution beyond the factors for which the scientists controlled could have an effect. The team anticipates future studies could leverage data from the Environmental Protection Agency and other sources to identify links between specific environmental causes and increased rates of autism and ID.
“We interpret the results of this study as a strong environmental signal,” Rzhetsky said. “For future genetic studies we may have to take into account where data were collected, because it’s possible that you can get two identical kids in two different counties and one would have autism and the other would not.”
The study, “Environment and incentives affect the incidence of autism and intellectual disability,” was funded by the National Institute for Mental Health and Chicago Biomedical Consortium. Additional authors include Steven Bagley, Kanix Wang, Christopher Lyttle, Edwin Cook, Jr., Russ Altman and Robert Gibbons.
http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/03/13/autism-and-intellectual...
-
-
-
Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036
Emitting carbon dioxide at current rates will soon push Earth’s temperature up by 2 degrees Celsius. Here’s how to make the calculation yourself
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mann-why-global-warming-w... -
-
-
Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer
U.S. scientists say the evidence linking rising levels of greenhouse gases and global warming is as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusi... -
-
-
Climate change disturbing deep ocean currents: Study
The recent climate change may be acting to slow down deep ocean currents with potentially serious consequences for the planet's future, a study warns.Deep currents act as conveyer belts, channelling heat, carbon, oxygen and nutrients around the globe.
A new study by the University of Pennsylvania's Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts - with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet's climate.
"Our observations are showing us that there is less formation of these deep waters near Antarctica," said Marinov, an assistant professor in the department of earth and environmental science."This is worrisome because, if this is the case, we're likely going to see less uptake of human produced, or anthropogenic, heat and carbon dioxide by the ocean, making this a positive feedback loop for climate change," she added.
Oceanographers have noticed that Antarctic Bottom Waters, a massive current of cold, salty and dense water that flows 2,000 metre under the ocean's surface from near the Antarctic coast toward the equator has been shrinking in recent decades.
This is cause for concern as the current is believed to "hide" heat and carbon from the atmosphere.
The Southern Ocean takes up approximately 60 percent of the anthropogenic heat produced on Earth and 40 to 50 per cent of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
"The Southern Ocean is emerging as being very, very important for regulating climate," Marinov said.
Marinov and colleagues used models to discern whether the shrinking of the Antarctic Bottom Waters could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
They looked to an unusual phenomenon that had been observed from satellite images taken between 1974 and 1976. The images revealed a large ice-free area within the Weddell Sea.
The researchers found that vertical gradients of salinity and density have increased in the Southern Ocean, suggesting that mixing has been reduced.
"We see that the convective process is shutting down as the water gets fresher and fresher," Marinov noted in the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The ocean contains about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere, making it a crucial but sometimes overlooked player in climate change regulation.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/... -
-
-
The climate change deniers have won
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change...Defeatist gibberish.
The quickest way to lose any campaign is to tell yourself that your opponents have won.
Preaching and self-righteousness have not worked. Neither has a blind faith in "truth". Trivial things you can do about your own home have not been all that motivational, either, when people reflect on how small the savings are even compared to the waste in their own workplaces.
Maybe we need to be working on things such as a vision of a better future, not just scaring people about a worse one. We need to concentrate on what people can win, not what they stand to lose.
Most of all, we need to see ourselves as working with people to address problems we have all been part of creating, not preaching from on high to people we typify as evil or ignorant.--
My reply:
This is really a wake up call. That is why this has been added here. And science communicators have a role to play in mobilizing peoples' opinion. But I have noticed there are climate change deniers even in this group like there are everywhere and they try to outsmart you. The debates end up without giving concrete suggestions leave alone taking measures correcting the situation.
Like one of my friends used to say ''only when you have exhausted all the plants on Earth and all the food in the markets, you will realize you cannot eat money!" Fools will learn from their own experiences. Shall we let fools dominate the world and us?JH:
People are motivated by goals and challenges, not doom and gloom. ...Paradigm shifts are based around what seems trite.
People are motivated by goals and challenges, not doom and gloom. We need big change, so we need to involve people in building the vision that they see as their own.
Human beings are motivated primarily by myths and vision, not truths. We need to build the story, not kid ourselves that the facts will carry the day. The liars and deniers are well aware of this but scientists and rationalists are in denial themselves of the nature of human motivation.
Is that trite against lugubrious self-flagellation?
Start thinking what a positive future might include; don't demand I spoon-feed it to you.LKT: As scientific writers you should have applied the scientific method to investigate evidence of climate warming. Do you remember the falsified evidence in the tree growth ring proxy? What that showed is that the proxy had failed. It means it was never valid. It raises the concern that other proxies should be closely examined.
While scientific methods are used to gather evidence there is a shift to opinion not science when those data are explained. Do your homework.My reply:
Hah! Millions are being spent by the commercial lobby to make deniers win the fight. Science doesn't have so much money. Where economics dictate terms facts and truth don't stand a chance. They are telling people to choose between jobs and not inhaling 'some smoke'. People are choosing the former!
The parameters are different here.
Goals, visions and challenges don't count. Who wants to think about 10 years from now if you and your kids are feeling hungry and food is being offered right now? It is easy to preach. Tell me something new.
The parameters are different here. There is already enough evidence. But if people deliberately choose to ignore them because they are told to do so by deniers by offering short term incentives?
Who cares about long term visions, goals and challenges or facts?
Give money and win the war. Money rules the world! -
Badge
Birthdays
Birthdays Today
Birthdays Tomorrow
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
