Climate change

[katie6]

Hello, I am looking for a climate scientist who can give me plain facts. I am trying to drum up interest in a grass roots movement with advertising but I don't want to put up incorrect information. Please would someone be willing to talk to me. Thank you for your time.

[zetreque]

Hello, I am looking for a climate scientist who can give me plain facts. I am trying to drum up interest in a grass roots movement with advertising but I don't want to put up incorrect information. Please would someone be willing to talk to me. Thank you for your time.

What you need is someone that is willing to answer your questions and provide their credentials. Preferably someone who has an advanced degree in earth science. Correct? Otherwise you are just going to get people looking up papers for you.

[katie6]

Correct, thank you. My plan is to have billboards with shocking facts like the religious right uses for prolife. However it also needs to be tied to a website with facts and an action plan. If I use facts I am not rock solid sure of then I can cause more harm than good. Thank you for any assistance you can give me.

[Serpent]

Here are some sites to get your research started:
https://bravenewclimate.com/about/
https://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real
https://ecofriend.com/

[katie6]

Thank you.

[TheVat]

The IPCC website is probably one of the best assemblages of information on this.

https://www.ipcc.ch/

If you are serious about mastering this subject, for any project, you will need to look at their 2018 report. Good luck.

[bangstrom]

My plan is to have billboards with shocking facts like the religious right uses for prolife.

Beliefs not formed on the basis of fact are not dissuaded by facts. This is why facts don't work.

[katie6]

Quite true , but poison is being dripped everyday. Some leavening can not hurt.

[TheVat]

I like your optimism, something sorely needed now. And many people are uncertain what they can believe these days, and those people may be more open to any delivery system for solid evidence-backed facts.

[zetreque]

Correct, thank you. My plan is to have billboards with shocking facts like the religious right uses for prolife.

Please just don't use any LED type billboards for at least two environmental reasons and you might end up with people calling you a hypocrite.

[katie6]

LOL. The first time in my life I have been called an optimist. I am an old grandmother. My youngest grandchild will be 18 in 2030. Closer to desperation.
No LED. Just replace a few of those Jesus is coming and prolife boards

[Serpent]

Pretty much anywhere you are, there is or soon will be some destructive manifestation of climate change.
If you choose your venue carefully and do a little research, you can make your billboards prophetic. Then suggest an action they can take: provide a link to information on an alternative energy source, or building style or food production. (I have a few of those, if you want them.)

THE DROUGHT IS COMING
fight climate change - url


NOTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH EXTINCTION
don't use coal - url

Like that, kind of?

[Event Horizon]

It's too late to stop now. Mitigation is going to be a pressing concern.
At uni I read environmental biology and ecology.
We had to hold emissions at pre 1975 levels. Of course, nobody in industry gave a crap about that.
Have you heard of the "tipping point"? Well, it tipped. From here on in, its all downhill for planet Earth.
Maybe when humans are gone it might recover.

[BadgerJelly]

Correct, thank you. My plan is to have billboards with shocking facts like the religious right uses for prolife. However it also needs to be tied to a website with facts and an action plan. If I use facts I am not rock solid sure of then I can cause more harm than good. Thank you for any assistance you can give me.

Won’t work. Your energy focused elsewhere would be much more constructive for human society imo.

[zetreque]

A more constrictive move would be to remove the existing billboards actually. Maybe change the county code. No one wants to see that garbage along the side of the road.

[PaulN]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-lo ... -20190225/

This article is unusual in the amount of scientific details it provides (rather long, but fascinating look at how supercomputer simulations are conducted). The uncertainty about stratocumulus formation and breakup is an area ripe for study, and powerfully impacts climate change models.

[TheVat]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bill-nye ... 875f24ab95

As problems grow nigh, we hear from Bill Nye.

[doogles]

This is worth a look for those who like to keep a balanced outlook on matters affecting the planet and who like to check first-hand articles themselves. This article -- https://principia-scientific.org/more-s ... ek-of-aug/ was titled More Sea Ice Than Average In Southernmost Arctic First Week Of Aug. It was written by Susan J Crockford PhD, who is a University of Victoria (British Columbia, Canada) zoologist and who specializes in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walrus. Her new book is The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).

The article does not appear to have made it to any major media outlets. It turned up in my e-mails and is worth a read for those who still have open minds.

Here are two brief excerpts -- "Polar bear habitat update for the first week of August 2019 shows there is still more sea ice than average in Hudson Bay, the southernmost area of continuous habitation for this species. ... That certainly wasn’t part of the predictions of doom, especially since freeze-up in that region for the last two years has also been earlier-than-average, which means a shorter ice-free season than we’ve seen for decades.

There is plenty of evidence in the article.

[TheVat]

Most members have open scientific minds, when there is evidence. The question is, as always: what does a preponderance of the evidence show? Intellectual honesty calls us to always look at that overall abundance of data and which predictive models seem to handle that data most effectively.

We had a cold winter here, last year. Global surface temps, however, remained elevated, and vast areas of permafrost continued to melt, coral reefs kept dying from thermal stress, storm surges continued to reach record highs, Antarctica and the Arctic and Greenland and coastal Alaska continued to have unprecedented losses of glacier and sea ice, record-breaking heatwaves continued to strike various parts of the world, tropical storms and cyclones, fed by warmer ocean waters, continued to show an upward trend in number and severity, and so on. These are all matters of public record and readers may easily verify these ongoing changes. Ockham's razor is your friend.

[charon]

Well, I hope there's no doubt that climate change exists! There's no doubt about it. At all. The fact that the US government is suppressing scientific evidence is proof enough of that. Thankfully the UK government hasn't gone down that route... so far.

'Climate change is happening and is due to human activity'

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-explained

[Serpent]

Not everyone is enamoured of Dr. Crockford, or her works.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/climate/polar-bears-climate-deniers.html
She's really got it in for polar bears -https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/dont-blame-melting-ice-for-polar-bear-attacks-blame-a-bear-baby-boom
seems like, the sooner we kill them off, the safer we'll be. Plus, there won't be any problem about the ice....
unless you care what happens to those same Inuit she believes are menaced by fat polar bears.
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/its-time-listen-inuit-climate-change

[TheVat]

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... crockford/

[charon]

It's not about polar bears, it's whether the ice is melting.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-polar- ... e-melting/

[Serpent]

This is cute.

“Skeptics” tend not to trust NASA because NASA is the government.

So, what's the government's excuse for dismissing NASA/EPA/ et al https://www.voanews.com/usa/13-us-agencies-involved-climate-change-report information?
If the skeptics don't believe any government agency sources, because they're government and presumed to have some kind of political agenda; don't believe any university-sponsored sources because academics are presumed to have some vested interest; don't believe the broadcasting network weather reports, because they're MSM and therefore suspect, what would it take to convince them?

There was a one-hour program on Boston's in particular and the state's climate mitigation actions, that's only about two decades late --- and still isolated. People are terribly uninformed! And that's down to MSM being too chickenshit to rock the money-boat.

[doogles]

Thank you all for the comments about Susan Crockford.

Just to be clear about my position, I fully accept that we have had a rise of approximately 1 degree C in Average Global Near Surface Temperatures over the last 100 odd years, and that it is anthropogenic. My problem with the problem is the alarmist type of terminology and early predictions associated with the problem since the 1990s. The use of emotional terms such as 'global warming', 'climate crisis' and 'climate catastrophe', in addition to the faith in carbon dioxide as a focus of attention, without any evaluation of the measures taken to date, certainly make me query anything and everything associated with the official IPCC position on the problem.

I appear to have opened a can of worms by citing that 2019 article on the Arctic ice and polar bears by Susan Crockford. I looked at all of those references you all cited and some of their offshoots. It appears that polar bears and the Arctic ice may have become symbolic of Climate Change.

It also appears that there is anything but consensus on the issue.

I noted the criticisms of a 2018 paper by Susan Crockford. It seems that there is more dispute than consensus in the Arctic/Polar Bear/Climate Change debate! But has anybody seen a critique of the 2019 article I referenced? The 2019 article I posted has a graph of the extent of ice sheets seasonally over the last decades and it seems quite acceptable to me; there is no deception evident that I could attribute to Susan Crockford.

The more I delve into areas of science outside of my own field, the more uncertain I become about accepting anybody's 'expert' opinions.

For example, this was a sideshoot reference from one of Serpent's references -- https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/so-many-b ... -1.4173058 -- It's titled Inuit differ from 'scientific' evaluations and written by a Bob Weber of the The Canadian Press. It was published in November 2018 and here are some excerpts -- -- "There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn't yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking. ... The plan leans heavily on Inuit knowledge, which yields population estimates higher than those suggested by western science for almost all of the 13 included bear populations. Scientists say only one population of bears is growing; Inuit say there are nine. Environment Canada says four populations are shrinking; Inuit say none are. ... "(Inuit knowledge) has not always been sufficiently incorporated by decision-makers," says a document submitted by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit land-claim organization. The disconnect between the sentiment in certain scientific communities and (Inuit knowledge) has been pronounced. ... The territory's wildlife management board will take what it hears at the public hearings and include it in a final document, which will go before the Nunavut cabinet for approval."

So where do we stand? A Susan Crockford (who apparently makes a living out of keeping in touch with the Arctic environment and its animals) produces an article that other professionals in the field regard as 'poor science'. But her position appears to be supported by Inuit Communities.

I note that Serpent provided a reference to an article By Sheila Watt-Cloutier November 15, 2018 in the Canadian Geographic that's titled It’s time to listen to the Inuit on climate change -- "Because temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than anywhere else in the world, we must look to the experiences of Inuit as a harbinger of what is to come — and seek their guidance on how to live sustainably." That sounds sensible to me but what this lady did not say was that the Inuit do not appear to be agreeing with the official findings of the scientists who study the region.

I'll see if I can uncover something about the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. I couldn't find anything useful except the article by Bob Weber above. There was one article by Tania Kohut on this site -- https://globalnews.ca/news/3112257/pola ... 050-study/, suggesting that the disagreement between the Inuit and the so-called scientific accounts is that those scientific accounts are projections based on climate models and the way they PREDICT the state of the arctic in 2050.

My interpretation is that once again the scientists are using 'modelling' to predict a huge decline of polar bears by 2050, but the Inuit are saying that we have had climate change for decades now, and as far as they can see, the polar bears are adapting very well; in fact, they are becoming a nuisance around their settlements.

To my mind, it comes down to scientific projections of theoretical models against feet-on-the-ground observations by Inuits in the area. I could not find references to "Scientists say only one population of bears is growing; Inuit say there are nine. Environment Canada says four populations are shrinking."

I would like to critically review such evidence and would really appreciate it if anyone in this forum could give me a lead. Has anyone come across any helpful leads?

[Serpent]

The ice is, in fact, melting. The permafrost is thawing. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-melting-1.5119767. The icecaps are shrinking https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice. The icebergs are calving https://www.futurity.org/iceberg-calving-video-1804972/. The glaciers are retreating https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7679/glacial-retreat.

It doesn't frickin' matter who agrees with whom about what. It doesn't matter where the polar bears have migrated; where they're dying now and where they'll die once the garbage is exhausted of sustenance and they're down to eating plastic, like the whales.
Look at the photographs.

THE. ICE. IS. MELTING.

[charon]

Polar bears are probably what they call collateral damage. Along with god knows what else.

[doogles]

I have no problem with those references Serpent, except for the emotional overtones of panic and doom in the first one.

My problem with the problem is the poor science, the lack of consensus and the emotionalism associated with the whole climate change story. This Arctic/polar bear/climate change is a good example.

There is blatant disagreement on a PRIMARY OBSERVATION of whether polar bears are dying out or thriving. How can that be so?

The scientists, with one or two exceptions are saying that the polar bears are dying off (and I was hoping someone like yourself and others could help me get hold of some basic data on this), while the local Inuit say words to the effect of "Yes, there are changes in the Arctic (See bottom graph on areas of sea ice), but the polar bears are adapting and even becoming a nuisance because of their numbers."

And you will remember the lack of consensus in the 1990s, when one large group of eminent scientists claimed that there was consensus on the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and they exhorted all of the countries to get behind the IPCC, and then a much larger group of scientists signed a petition saying words to the effect that they did not endorse the basic science being supported by the first group.

So there is 'bleaching' of coral due to temperature changes of half to one degree C. How can this be so when the Great Barrier Reef covers 2000 km from north to south with a water temperature range of 10 degrees C, and when from winter to summer, the range in any given location is also 10 degrees C? Obviously, any species of coral in our Great Barrier Reef can withstand a 10 degree range. Am I missing something?

Yes, there is an increase in average near surface global temperatures, most probably caused by human activities, and there are many observable probable geophysical changes as a result. But unfortunately, we Homo sapiens appear to be running around like chooks with their heads chopped off. Millions of people, including school children turned out last week to protest about their governments not doing enough.

To date, the only major attack has been on emissions of carbon dioxide, and after 23 years since the Kyoto Protocol, no scientific evaluation has been conducted on the effectiveness of that method. The concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are readily available for everyone to see from Cape Grim or Moana Loa. And as I've said many times, even Blind Freddie can see that all the kings horses and all the king's men have not made a dent in the graph. Yet the best we appear to have done is to call out for more of the same. Any business using the same principles would go broke.

I try to be constructive in everything I do. If this means breaking ranks with the way the mob thinks, I'll cop the flak, but I'll still have a go.

I've mentioned the accumulating literature on the declining of cloud volumes maybe, as a side effect of the reduction of emissions. In another thread I produced evidence that in the Mediterranean area at least, a 3% reduction in cloud results in a radiative forcing of 4 Watts per square metre, compared with 1.6 for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need research on hygroscopic nuclei and ways of spreading them through the atmosphere. At least the IPCC recognised this in their 2013 report and they were talking about researching sulphurated compounds to inject into the stratosphere. It may have been just talk.

And there is now a cloud research unit at CERN, which is good.

I still don't understand why the IPCC, or most other people for that matter, have not seriously considered researching suggestions for reducing population growth. Sheer numbers of people need feeding and sooner or later, we'll run out of arable land or fertilisers for that land. Not only that, but since 1970, we have increased our world energy usage by 100,000 TeraWattHours per year (W x 1012). Our world surface area is 150,000 x 1012 square metres. I'll leave you to work that out. Some of that energy by the way is used to manufacture and transport renewables.

I'd like to see more world-wide diverse thinking and ideas-input, and less alarmism.

This graph shows a gradual but total decrease of 2 to 5 million square kilometres of sea ice over a 40 year period, with seasonal variations to extremes. The gradual but steady decrease over this 40 year period may just be allowing the polar bears to adapt, but I would like to see the 'scientific' data suggesting that the polar bears are in decline -- with anyone's assistance.

[Serpent]

My problem with the problem is the poor science,

By what standard is the prevailing climate science "poor"?

the lack of consensus

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Really? I suppose, as long as somebody with a doctorate can be found to counter-blog, it's not a 100%; therefore, leaves plenty of room for doubt and forces you to collect raw data and create you own model. It's something to do while waiting.

and the emotionalism associated with the whole climate change story. This Arctic/polar bear/climate change is a good example.

Is, in fact, the only example. That's why the deniers are picking on the polar bears - they're more photogenic than lobsters, etc., so they've become a symbol. Meanwhile, thousands of species are going extinct without so much as an obituary. It will get much worse very fast.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinction-in-earth-rsquo-s-oceans-could-begin-by-2100/
The world is ending. We're all going to die. Nothing to get excited about.

[TheVat]

I am puzzled by the general idea that the consequences of global warming are something not to be emotional about. Alarm would seem to be a natural and survival-promoting response to events that threaten suffering and death. We humans have many emotions for powerfully adaptive reasons. Alarm says "do something!"

If anything, the media seem to be downplaying the looming prospect of a tipping point, where loss of ice and permafrost actually accelerates the feedback loop. I don't think many in the general public are aware of the methane hydrates loop or the permafrost-to-bog CO2 loop or other feedback mechanisms.
And many MSM owners are also invested in fossil fuels and/or cement production and/or Arctic mining ventures, etc. so it's not a real surprise that they don't want their audiences to be too "emotional" about what's happening right now. Getting emotional might lead to public demand for initiatives on both GHG reduction and on introduction of hygroscopic nuclei into the strat.