Perversions of open-minded thinking on climate change

[Glacier]

So the more open minded or scientifically literate you are, the more likely you are to be skeptical about climate change... but only if you're on the right side of the political isle. The left side shows the opposite trend.



https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/01/perv ... te-change/

[Jlabute]

That appears true doesn't it. Another interesting article I read was about climate model error and how it really is impossible to extrapolate what the future will bring. As the models extrapolate year to year, the associated error also multiplies out.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/ ... del-error/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGG ... e=youtu.be

[youjustcomplain]

Open minded and scientifically literate leads to skepticism around climate change?

So, what about climate scientists? Is the theory that they are not scientifically literate or that they aren't open minded?

More broadly though, I suspect open minded people who are scientifically literate are more skeptical on all topics than closed minded.

EDIT: Looking at your chart, I'd wonder how many people feel qualified to answer the question in the first place? I don't know nearly enough about the topic to state one way or another what "solid evidence" is or what would qualify as "solid evidence".

[Silverstarqueen]

Majority of scientists skeptical:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... e560e0171b

[I Think]

A scientist that is not sceptical is not a scientist.
However the preponderance of evidence indicates that the planet is warming at an alarming rate.
One has only to look at the glaciers and polar ice caps which have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years.
Flogging a long dead denial horse ain't gonna move the cart.

[The Green Barbarian]

One has only to look at the glaciers and polar ice caps which have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years.
.

Polar sea ice has only been monitored for 36 years. How can you say that the caps have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years when this is completely unsupportable?

[Silverstarqueen]

50 ro 60 years (or even a hundred or two), is hardly enough to determine a trend, or the cause of it. Polar ice (and glaciers) have melted before, Canada used to be warmer than it is now many centuries ago. Large trees grew in northern parts like alaska. so what caused all that warming so many years ago? Climate has been changing (drastically) in time periods past, so it's no surprise that it is happening again.

[PuppyLove]

Look at earth from space at night and we have dominated the place with concrete jungles and pollution - far from the sustainable "natural" environment. Yes, without man there is a natural fluctuation in temperatures over time, but I believe we have reached the tipping point, where weather will continue to get more extreme. It's probably too late to change this, since change is slow. Each year we will see new records with temperatures, storms and freakish weather around the globe.

[maryjane48]

That appears true doesn't it. Another interesting article I read was about climate model error and how it really is impossible to extrapolate what the future will bring. As the models extrapolate year to year, the associated error also multiplies out.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/ ... del-error/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGG ... e=youtu.be

you know more than nasa and noaa? lol now thats funny

[maryjane48]

50 ro 60 years (or even a hundred or two), is hardly enough to determine a trend, or the cause of it. Polar ice (and glaciers) have melted before, Canada used to be warmer than it is now many centuries ago. Large trees grew in northern parts like alaska. so what caused all that warming so many years ago? Climate has been changing (drastically) in time periods past, so it's no surprise that it is happening again.

the difference from natural to human activty caused is time scale. we know from geological records that natural change occurs on scales in the tens to hundreds of thousands of years. the change occuring now is just over a hundred years, thats why most scientists suspect its human caused because it is the only other reason for it to happen

[maryjane48]

Polar sea ice has only been monitored for 36 years. How can you say that the caps have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years when this is completely unsupportable?

oh really?


Arctic sea ice appeared to have reached its annual lowest extent on Sept. 10, NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder reported today.

An analysis of satellite data showed that at 1.60 million square miles (4.14 million square kilometers), the 2016 Arctic sea ice minimum extent is effectively tied with 2007 for the second lowest yearly minimum in the satellite record. Since satellites began monitoring sea ice in 1978, researchers have observed a steep decline in the average extent of Arctic sea ice for every month of the year.


37 years of monthly sea ice extents in the Arctic and Antarctic found that there has not been a record high in Arctic sea ice extents in any month since 1986. During that same time period, there have been 75 new record lows.









The work being done now shows carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere contributing to climate change.

“There’s a rising temperature trend” since July 1890, Washington said. “It’s indeed getting warmer and warmer.”

Washington said that things that are taken to account to gauge climate change are vegetation levels, land coverage changes and river flow.

“It’s a complicated process,” he said, adding that all ecological changes run together and are connected to climate change.


Washington showed an animated climate model simulation of the Earth in 2100 if there is nothing done to reduce carbon dioxide concentration levels. It showed much more warming over land masses and the oceans.

politicians in the U.S. to come to grips that it’s is not a hoax but a reality everyone must plan take on.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html

[maryjane48]

Global surface temperature was record warm in 2015, moving ahead of the record set just last year by 0.29°F—the largest margin by which one year has ever beaten another since official records began in 1880.

Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth's globally averaged surface temperature is rising. For the last 45 years, global surface temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.17°C (around 0.3° Fahrenheit) per decade—more than twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed for the entire period of recorded observations

During the Industrial Revolution, humans began burning coal, natural gas, and oil to power machines for manufacturing and transportation. Since then, we have burned more fossil fuels each decade, releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide that were previously stored in the ground into the atmosphere.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm. When continuous observations began at Mauna Loa in 1958, carbon dioxide concentration was roughly 315 ppm. On May 9, 2013, the daily average concentration of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time on record. Since then, monthly average carbon dioxide levels have periodicially exceeded 400 ppm.

How do we know that rising carbon dioxide levels are linked to human activity?
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, people have been burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, power machines for manufacturing and transportation, and heat homes and offices. Comparisons of historical records of fossil fuel utilization with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration show a close correlation between the two. Though correlation alone does not indicate causation, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by other sources such as volcanoes or forest fires is not sufficient by a large margin to account for the measured increase.


https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide


the only perversions i see in this thread are the ones trying to link climate change and political parties , folks that say humans have zero to do with it are same ones saying god will fix the climate

[Ka-El]

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis,
but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

I have done a good deal of reading on this subject since we’ve all started this debate, following and reading links provided by people from both sides of the argument. I’ve really tried to keep an open mind, but it is becoming more and more clear that man’s influence on climate change (and I’m not arguing man has had no influence) is minimal at best. Yes, I believe the evidence temperatures are rising and storms are becoming more severe in places but there are several factors that can be considered when looking for cause. The bottom line is these things that are occurring, including natural cycles, are far beyond any control of arrogant humans. I’m not going to get into the many other factors, possibilities and explanations here. Anyone who wants to pursue the issue with an open mind can easily find the same information I’m sure.

What Maryjane doesn’t understand with her time scale argument is that these cycles both decelerate and accelerate depending on which end of the cycle we are in. The cycle we are in now, and have been for some time, is accelerating. No matter what influence man has had in contributing to that, we will have very little, if any influence in even slowing, let alone stopping that. That is not to say we shouldn’t still try to develop alternative and cleaner sources of energy (to protect our air and water), but we really have to stop distracting ourselves and preparing ourselves for what is inevitable.

Super strong levies and storm breaks built around coastal cities prone to storm surges should be a priority. We should be doing that now, and this will require the use of heavy machinery, fueled by fossil fuel. One of the most short-sighted decisions we could make (IMHO) is not aggressively pursuing space exploration and development. We have already advanced so much because of what we’ve learned and accomplished to date, and what we still stand to discover and learn is only limited by our imagination right now. At this time launching rockets into space will require fossil fuel. Our computing and technology sectors will also be critical, and likely for the next few decades at least they will be dependent on fossil fuel by-products. It is nice to imagine the what alternatives are being explored, but realism and practical facts will still prevail.

We will continue to research cleaner and alternative energy sources, but our weaning off oil will be a gradual thing taking many decades I suspect. It will be a long time before we are flying electrically powered 747s from San Francisco to Hong Kong, and even our transition from gas powered motor vehicles to completely electric cars will take many years. The best thing to do today to reduce the major damaging impact of automobile use (big city traffic congestion) would be to build much more intensive public transportation systems, both electric and mag lev, and make it easier for people to get on a train than get in their car. Again, this will require the use of heavy machinery, fueled by fossil fuel.

If we accept the climate is changing (and I do believe we should), we need to see how that change is going to impact us and prepare for it. Drought and severe forest fires are becoming a more common occurrence, and there are steps that could and should be taken to address both those concerns (eg. GMOS being created to produce high yield crops in drought conditions).

This distraction about reducing emissions by industry (a miniscule contributor to overall emissions and likely little to no impact on climate change) limits our ability to be doing the things we really need to be doing. It is worse than counter-productive. It is actually destructive and may prove to be our downfall if we leave ourselves totally unprepared, and these cap and trade schemes only serve to help certain groups get rich off others. As a collective species, we really need to get our poop in a group and start working together to have any hope of any kind of sustainable future. This is no time for ganga induced musings. It is time for real action aimed at realistic and achievable goals.

[maryjane48]

What Maryjane doesn’t understand with her time scale argument is that these cycles both decelerate and accelerate depending on which end of the cycle we are in. The cycle we are in now, and have been for some time, is accelerating. No matter what influence man has had in contributing to that, we will have very little, if any influence in even slowing, let alone stopping that.

i have posted several links from nasa and noaa over the years and they clearly show the consensus among serious climate scientists is the evidence shows through greenhouse gas emissions since humans have started increasing these gases that we have indeed speeded up what happens naturally. what folks like you fail to understand is no matter how much money you have it wont protect you . you can have your opinion but please do not try and present it as fact because your wrong .


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


lets see your link saying the consensus is now humans are not causing it or contributing to it .

[maryjane48]

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Reducing emissions of and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”);
Adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”).


Mitigation – reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,


Adaptation – adapting to life in a changing climate – involves adjusting to actual or expected future climate. The goal is to reduce our vulnerability to the harmful effects of climate change (like sea-level encroachment, more intense extreme weather events or food insecurity). It also encompasses making the most of any potential beneficial opportunities associated with climate change (for example, longer growing seasons or increased yields in some regions).


http://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adapt ... itigation/


it is not all oh well we cant do anything so lets just slow cook , but the reality is there things we can do , but they take courage and vision , the things we should all aspire to .

but hey if some want to remain in denial well that is their choice and being on wrong side of history has happened to other people in past so it wont be that lonely there