Last Build Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:05:42 +0000
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 22:05:42 +0000@JCH >won’t change a thing. Actually that is far from true. The "name calling, scorn and ridicule" of climate science using a non-existent "pause" in planetary warming as a club has had a big impact on public attitudes and has played and continues to play a role in preventing us from mapping out a sensible political response to GHG emissions. The same groups and people who regularly ridicule and pour scorn on climate science are already declaring the start of the next "pause".
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:37:39 +0000Gavin and other responders (nos. 42, 34 and 26): Thank you all for explaining the 1938-45 “bump” and for putting it into perspective. I will use the information you’ve so kindly and generously given to me as best as possible. In my experience the people who find climate science uninteresting are not dumb. They have other priorities and interests: politics, world affairs, terrorism and similar fears, family happenings, the economics of getting by, sports and fitness, church involvement, etc. Science may barely be on the menu, but their plate is quite full. A cornucopia even. Apparently my wife viewed the NASA video as part of a picture package she receives on Instagram. This suggests that public outreach is a good idea, doesn’t it? When I look at the 1880-2016 graph I see that the period from 1940 to 1975, while intellectually interesting with its World War II bump and its post-war “flat period”, has little policy importance. It looks like statistical noise in a graph showing an enormously important and disturbing long-term trend. The trend needs to be a bigger part – a major part – of the national dialogue. Thanks again!
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:29:02 +0000Chris O'Neill says many things that make me smile a lot.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:09:29 +0000
Don’t waste your time trying to prove that this ism is better than that ism. Ditch all the big words. Why? Because, again, the problem is not the message but the messenger. It’s not that Trump supporters are too stupid to see right from wrong, it’s that you’re much more valuable to them as an enemy than as a compatriot. The problem is tribal. Your challenge is to prove that you belong in the same tribe as them: that you are American in exactly the same way they are.https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/ Seriously worth a slow thoughtful read
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:03:55 +0000https://www.yahoo.com/news/fighting-fake-news-climate-change-090038095.html
in a paper published Monday, researchers suggest using a psychological “vaccine” to inoculate the public against the damaging effects of misleading “myths about climate change.” In a statement, the researchers from universities of Yale, George Mason, and Cambridge in the United Kingdom, said: “A new study compared reactions to a well-known climate change fact with those to a popular misinformation campaign. When presented consecutively, the false material completely cancelled out the accurate statement in people’s minds — opinions ended up back where they started. Researchers then added a small dose of misinformation to delivery of the climate change fact, by briefly introducing people to distortion tactics used by certain groups. This ‘inoculation’ helped shift and hold opinions closer to the truth — despite the follow-up exposure to ‘fake news’.”https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-01/uoc-pc011917.php
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:35:35 +0000> Are deniers all politically conservative? Look at the advertisers who buy ad space. They know the customers. Advertising there is a good way to find a credulous audience. Well documented: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:59:10 +0000"Are deniers all politically conservative?" Most, but not quite all. There is a strain of leftwing denialism, too For instance, the late Alexander Cockburn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Cockburn#Green_issues There was also a (very flaky) guy calling himself "Gordon Robertson" with whom I used to joust pretty regularly who fell into this category. Haven't seen his handle lately, though. Don't know if he died or was disabled, or just gave up. In any case, I think the numbers of these types was small and has probably gotten smaller.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:34:25 +0000So why are we still talking about the 1998-2013 pause when we should be talking about the 2007-2016 hyper-warming? If you look at the major datasets (global surface and satellite), the average trend over the last ten years is +0.325C per decade. The strongest warming is found in the (denier favored) satellite data which averages to about 0.4C per decade. The weakest warming is found in the NOAA database with the those hated Karl corrections (+0.187C, the only dataset showing less than 0.3C). Since their favorite sources now clearly demonstrate the hyper-warming, will the deniers become believers? Now granted the ten year time frame is too short to draw any serious conclusions, but that didn't stop deniers from declaring the pause at least as early as 2008.
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:07:30 +0000The GMST decreased from 2005 through 2012. If the same thing happens again from 2016 through 2023, nothing will be done. All the name calling and scorn and ridicule in world won't change a thing. So, is the pause that never happened going to happen again?
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:20:16 +0000A point in the discussion about the 'pause' that caught my eyes was the large number of possible - and not implausible at first sight - explanations for the reduced trend. Many of them were presented as explaining a large part of the reduced warming. Among others: ENSO, solar activity, (deep) ocean warming, data gaps, etc. If you'd sum up alle the suggested influences, their aggregated effect would have been quite a strong cooling trend. This was not the case, and with global temperature being largely back in the range of the long-term trend and the model projections it should be possible to have a second look on the suggested explanations. Provided that global warming has not strongly accelerated (for whatever reason), most probably not all of these influences had the suggested effect. What we can do now is to compare the change of these factors over the last few years, because these should show a similar development as global temperature. ENSO is certainly an important factor. But it probably does not explain the whole increase. Solar activity is still low, thus it might not explain much. I haven't seen recent data about ocean warming. Data gaps is a longer term effect that might 'hide' some warming, but can't explain such a strong interannual increase. These are just first thoughts, but it might be interesting to dig and discuss more in depth. It's not about the long-term trend, but it might give us hints about interannual or decadal variability.