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
-
Science and Global Warming
I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, "global warming" and "global climate change," [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase "climate change," finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here.Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.
Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.
Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don't have it.
What can we conclude?
1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.
--
Climate Change Denial, Creationism, and Other Bad Science Don’t Deserve Equal Consideration in Science Journalism
There. We said it. -
-
-
Museums tiptoe around climate change
Texas Museum Loses Climate Change Displayhttp://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140614-museums-tiptoe-a...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/budding-scientist/2014/06/16/mu... -
-
-
Not U.S., India Spearheaded in Combating Climate Change: Survey
India is leading the way in combating the challenges of global warming while skeptical Americans still question climate change, according to a new global survey by Time magazine.Of the six countries polled, Indians were the likeliest to express deep concerns about energy and consumption and were the most committed to conservation and the most optimistic about their ability to reduce emissions.
More than 9 in 10 Indians reported that conservation issues were "very important" to them, compared to 68 percent overall, the U.S. news magazine's survey about attitudes toward energy found.
Indians were more than twice as willing to pay more for clean energy as residents of Brazil, Germany, Turkey, South Korea or the U.S.
"Each of these countries has moved to minimise their environmental footprint in different ways," the Time survey noted.
"Germans are in the habit of powering down their computers. Brazilians are assiduous about switching off lights. The U.S. leads the way in recycling."
"But Indians reported the most comprehensive approach to energy conservation, with 8 in 10 Indians reporting that they have altered their personal habits to curb consumption," Time said.
Those changes include several simple tasks that go a long way toward shaving both costs and carbon emissions, it said.
"Indians are the likeliest of the six nations surveyed to carpool, take public transportation, and walk rather than ride in a vehicle.
http://www.siliconindia.com/news/general/Not-US-India-Spearheaded-i... -
-
-
Climate change prompting Arctic birds to breed early
Earlier spring seasons and snow-melt brought about by climate change are causing migratory birds that breed in the Arctic Alaska to breed sooner, says a study."It seems clear that the timing of the snow melt in the Arctic Alaska is the most important mechanism driving the earlier and earlier breeding dates we observed in the Arctic," said Joe Liebezeit from Audubon Society of Portland in the US.
Researchers looked in nearly 2,500 nests of four shorebird species semi-palmated sandpiper, red phalarope, red-necked phalarope, and pectoral sandpiper, and one songbird, the lapland longspur, and recorded when the first eggs were laid in each nest.
Snow-melt was assessed in nesting plots at different intervals in the early spring. Other variables, like nest predator abundance (which is thought to affect timing of breeding), and satellite measures of "green-up" (the seasonal flush of new growth of vegetation) in the tundra were also assessed as potential drivers of the change in nest timing. But these were found to be less important than snow-melt.
"The rates of advancement in earlier breeding are higher in Arctic birds than in other temperate bird species, and this accords with the fact that the Arctic climate is changing at twice the rate," Liebezeit added.
The study appeared in the online edition of the journal Polar Biology
-
-
-
Environmental Crime Funds Terrorism
Environmental destruction—from smuggling elephant tusks to illegal dumping of toxic waste—generates as much as $213 billion annually for criminals and terrorists.
In Somalia, the terrorist group al-Shabaab take in at least $38 million a year by felling trees illegally and burning them into charcoal. The activity is their largest source of cash. In Africa as a whole, the illegal charcoal trade—the main cooking fuel—most likely brings in more money than the illegal drug trade.Taken together, all types of environmental crime—from smuggling elephant tusks to China to illegal dumping of toxic waste—generates as much as $213 billion for unsavory characters around the world. That’s according to a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme and Interpol.
The biggest chunk of that sum comes from forest crime—illicitly-cut-down rare timber, like teak, and other illegally harvested trees lost as exported pulp or wood chips. Then there's the smuggling of wildlife, dead or alive. Poached ivory fetches at least $165 million a year in Asia while our closest living relatives—great apes like chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans—are being kidnapped from the wild and sold to private collectors.
But environmental crime can be fought. For example, Brazil has dramatically reduced tree-cutting in the Amazon with better enforcement, and east Africa has stepped up its ivory busts. And as consumers, we all can help curb crime by cutting the demand for these goods. Just say no.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/environmental-cri... -
-
-
The world is getting warmer, as greenhouse gases reach historic highs and Arctic sea ice melts, making 2013 one of the hottest years on record, international scientists said on Thursday.
The annual State of the Climate Report 2013 is a review of scientific data and weather events over the past year, compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries.
The report looks at essential climate variables, much like a doctor checks a person's vital signs at an annual checkup, said Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
The report is published in the peer-reviewed Bulletin of the American Meterological Society. -
-
-
Human-induced water vapour next climate threat
The rising levels of water vapour in the upper troposphere - a key amplifier of global warming - owing to greenhouse gases will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades, scientists said."The study is the first to confirm that human activities have increased water vapour in the upper troposphere," said Brian Soden, professor of atmospheric sciences at University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above the earth's surface, Soden and colleagues measured water vapour in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites.
Using the set of climate model experiments, researchers showed that rising water vapour in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity but by increased greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping the earth's radiant heat inside the atmosphere.
This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapour, the most abundant greenhouse gas.
The atmospheric moistening traps additional radiant heat and further increases temperatures.
Climate models predict that as the climate warms from the burning of fossil fuels, the concentrations of water vapour will also increase in response to that warming.
This moistening of the atmosphere, in turn, absorbs more heat and further raises the Earth's temperature, the study noted.
-
-
-
Climate Change Not ‘One-Size-Fits-All’
A study of moraines shows that climate change has differential effects on the Northern and Southern hemispheres.
Scientists are calling for a better understanding of regional climates, after research into New Zealand’s glaciers has revealed climate change in the Northern Hemisphere does not directly affect the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.The University of Queensland (UQ) study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, showed that future climate changes may impact differently in the two hemispheres, meaning a generalised global approach isn’t the solution to climate issues.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/140154711 -
-
-
Global Warming Has Become "Normal" Climate for Most People
Global warming has been going on for so long that most people were not even born the last time the Earth was cooler than average in 1985 in a shift that is altering perceptions of a "normal" climate, scientists said. Decades of climate change bring risks that people will accept higher temperatures, with more heatwaves, downpours and droughts, as normal and complicate government plans to do more to cut emissions of greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-has-become... -
-
-
Oceans Hid the Heat and Slowed Pace of Global Warming
The Atlantic and Southern oceans may be responsible for the slowdown in the acceleration of global warming—but not for long
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-s... -
-
-
Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate change? Scientists say no
How can sea ice grow in a warming world?Climate skeptics have pounced on this apparent discrepancy, citing it as proof that climate change isn't real, or at least that scientists don't completely understand it. But those who study Antarctic sea ice say their curious observations shouldn't shake anyone's confidence. Dramatic changes in temperature, sea level and extreme weather around the world are proof enough the planet is warming, they say; the only question is how these changes affect the Antarctic as they ripple through the climate system.
The westerly winds blow fierce and constant around Antarctica, isolating the continent in a kind of permanent polar vortex. Scientists think they exert the most direct control over the state of Antarctic sea ice.Ice requires cold temperatures to form, and winds help it grow by blowing it around the polar ocean. When the ice moves, new water is exposed to the chilly air, creating an opportunity to make more ice.
In the landlocked Arctic, winter sea ice gets hemmed in by Russia, Greenland, Canada and Alaska, said Thorsten Markus, head of cryospheric sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. But in the Antarctic, unflagging winds push ice ever farther into the empty Southern Ocean.
Those winds have intensified in recent years because of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the presence of the ozone hole. Both serve to magnify the differences in temperature and atmospheric pressure between Antarctica and the tropics, which speed up winds and cause them to swirl faster and more tightly around the continent.
Scientists say sea ice and continental ice are probably responding to the same forces — namely, changes in ocean circulation and winds. However, they also influence each other. Sea ice helps buffer ice shelves, the floating tongues of glacial ice that dam the ice sheets and keep them from spilling irreversibly into the sea. It also keeps warm ocean waters trapped beneath a frozen lid, insulating the ice sheet from their destructive heat.
In the long run, however, scientists expect Antarctic sea ice to decline everywhere.
Scientists think changes in the winds have altered ocean circulation, allowing warmer waters below the surface layer to sneak in closer to the shore. These, in turn, may cause glaciers to melt, producing fresh water that freezes at a higher temperature than salt water and thus creates more sea ice. But without long-term observations, it's hard to measure this effect.
Changes in snowfall may play a role too. In the Antarctic, sea ice grows thicker when new snow falls on top of it, depressing it and flooding it with sea water, which eventually freezes. However, it's still unclear whether snowfall has increased in Antarctica.
It's even possible that the current growth spurt is just a short upward wiggle in a larger downward trend. Thirty years isn't really that long.
In January, scientists at New York University offered the most complete explanation yet for the surprising trends in Antarctic sea ice extent. Writing in the journal Nature, they suggested the sea ice distribution in the south could be controlled by ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean through large-scale changes in atmospheric pressure linked to global warming and natural variability. Other researchers like the idea but say verifying it will take more time.
But these critiques oversimplify the science of climate change.
Sea ice is a case in point. Ironically, one of the possible reasons to get more ice is warming.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-antarctic-sea-ice-20140830-st...
-
-
-
WSJ continues to make things up about climate science
Amid misinformation, a columnist makes a ridiculously short-sighted argument for delaying action
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/08/wsj_continues_to_make_things_up_abo... -
Badge
Birthdays
© 2024 Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.
Powered by
