NASA Global Warming Visualization

[walhondingnashua]

Cancer is a normally occurring part of life. It actually occurs in our bodies all the time and the normally occurring functions of our immune system prevents that cancer from exceeding what it normally should do. Sometimes the immune system cannot stop the cancer or something causes the cancer to take hold or "grow stronger" than the immune system can suppress. I understand I am drastically over-simplifying this.
The Earth has cancer. Human activities (we all know the list) have both prevented the Earth's "immune system" from regulating this cancer under normal processes and have also made the cancer "stronger." Cancer is normal. Doesn't mean it's good.

 

[begreen]

This study verifies the risks of depending on reforestation to balance atmospheric CO2. According to the paper, the main issue will be a lack of water.

Compound extreme heat and drought will hit 90% of world population – Oxford study | University of Oxford

More than 90% of the world’s population is projected to face increased risks from the compound impacts of extreme heat and drought, potentially widening social inequalities as well as undermining the natural world’s ability to reduce CO2 emissions in the atmosphere - according to a study from...

www.ox.ac.uk

 

[semipro]

A relatively recent report says ExxonMobil's modeling and understanding of global warming weren't reflected in its public stance.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

 

[GrumpyDad]

I never know what to believe. I really dont trust studies anymore, and after the pandemic probably never again. Id like to see opposing science views fight it out with data , together, but the louder voices usually prevail these days and silence the others.

One thing I do know, man made or now - this was a crap winter for cold/snow. One of the worst, and I thought the worst was 2 years ago. And 2 years ago I thought the worst was the year prior. Ten years ago, a foot or three of snow wasnt uncommon for us. Heck when I was a kid, every picture of us during the winter was wrapped up like we were going to space with our sidewalks and driveway sides chest high with piled up snow. That same area hasnt seen more than 3" in probably 3 years.

Great example, search google for this very topic. You'll find all the big names, NPR, PBS, Sierra club, even a website called ExxonKnew...do you think anyone from these organizations do their own due diligence or do they just parrot what is being said? The answer is the latter.
Now dig and find opposing views...it's difficult. But here's one https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/0...-study-designed-to-make-money-off-litigation/
Some offbeat offshoot publication ..nothing mainstream that would garner any sense of credibility into the mindless drones that our society has become.
We literally have become drones.
Think about the absolutely blind rage people have with politics, such extreme views being demonstrated with so little in between, or even the topic of vaccinations which should never be a touchy subject but somehow it is. We are being taught to FALL IN LINE or risk being 'cancelled' or discredited or labeled as fringe.

The media has become more powerful than anything else that ever exist. Any roman emperor or any US citizen. They control what you get to read, and what you dont, what you get to think and what you dont.

Again, could be all true but - where are the opposing views?

 

[bholler]

I never know what to believe. I really dont trust studies anymore, and after the pandemic probably never again. Id like to see opposing science views fight it out with data , together, but the louder voices usually prevail these days and silence the others.

One thing I do know, man made or now - this was a crap winter for cold/snow. One of the worst, and I thought the worst was 2 years ago. And 2 years ago I thought the worst was the year prior. Ten years ago, a foot or three of snow wasnt uncommon for us. Heck when I was a kid, every picture of us during the winter was wrapped up like we were going to space with our sidewalks and driveway sides chest high with piled up snow. That same area hasnt seen more than 3" in probably 3 years.

Great example, search google for this very topic. You'll find all the big names, NPR, PBS, Sierra club, even a website called ExxonKnew...do you think anyone from these organizations do their own due diligence or do they just parrot what is being said? The answer is the latter.
Now dig and find opposing views...it's difficult. But here's one https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/0...-study-designed-to-make-money-off-litigation/
Some offbeat offshoot publication ..nothing mainstream that would garner any sense of credibility into the mindless drones that our society has become.
We literally have become drones.
Think about the absolutely blind rage people have with politics, such extreme views being demonstrated with so little in between, or even the topic of vaccinations which should never be a touchy subject but somehow it is. We are being taught to FALL IN LINE or risk being 'cancelled' or discredited or labeled as fringe.

The media has become more powerful than anything else that ever exist. Any roman emperor or any US citizen. They control what you get to read, and what you dont, what you get to think and what you dont.

Again, could be all true but - where are the opposing views?

Have you actually read peer reviewed studies on this? Looked at the data? Opposing views are fine but the ones claiming it isn't an issue simply ignore the data. They just say it has happened before but don't comment of the difference in the rate of change currently compared to the previous swings in climate.

Can you post some peer reviewed data based studies that indicate humans havnt contributed dramatically to climate change? The article you linked to doesn't offer anything in terms of data claiming there is no man made climate change. It simply points out flaws in one studies procedures. So what about the hundreds of others?

 

[SpaceBus]

ExxonMobile and other fossil fuel giants arguably have a better understanding of climate change and the forcings related to it than any other organizations on the planet. Their data is routinely accurate and more precise than anything coming out of universities or publicly funded groups.

I never know what to believe. I really dont trust studies anymore, and after the pandemic probably never again. Id like to see opposing science views fight it out with data , together, but the louder voices usually prevail these days and silence the others.

One thing I do know, man made or now - this was a crap winter for cold/snow. One of the worst, and I thought the worst was 2 years ago. And 2 years ago I thought the worst was the year prior. Ten years ago, a foot or three of snow wasnt uncommon for us. Heck when I was a kid, every picture of us during the winter was wrapped up like we were going to space with our sidewalks and driveway sides chest high with piled up snow. That same area hasnt seen more than 3" in probably 3 years.

Great example, search google for this very topic. You'll find all the big names, NPR, PBS, Sierra club, even a website called ExxonKnew...do you think anyone from these organizations do their own due diligence or do they just parrot what is being said? The answer is the latter.
Now dig and find opposing views...it's difficult. But here's one https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/0...-study-designed-to-make-money-off-litigation/
Some offbeat offshoot publication ..nothing mainstream that would garner any sense of credibility into the mindless drones that our society has become.
We literally have become drones.
Think about the absolutely blind rage people have with politics, such extreme views being demonstrated with so little in between, or even the topic of vaccinations which should never be a touchy subject but somehow it is. We are being taught to FALL IN LINE or risk being 'cancelled' or discredited or labeled as fringe.

The media has become more powerful than anything else that ever exist. Any roman emperor or any US citizen. They control what you get to read, and what you dont, what you get to think and what you dont.

Again, could be all true but - where are the opposing views?

What makes you trust this guy?

 

[begreen]

The argument that one study is in error or inappropriate does not make all studies or news reports in error or suspect. It's a false equivalent. Are all studies perfect? No, but by and large, humanity and science are progressing. The knowledge and data we have on climate are growing rapidly and far ahead of even 20 yrs ago. It's good to be skeptical and question. That is scientific reasoning. But to deny a preponderance of evidence based on mistrust can be dangerous, even fatal.

 

[stoveliker]

Science gets things wrong all the time. However, the device on which you read this shows that science, over time, gets to the real truth in the core. It gets things right. Almost always. Eventually.

And for the climate that "eventually" has been reached - there are almost zero dissenting scientists. I.e. the people that DO fight it out with data in their hand. That do not rely on what some pundit may write. That actually gather data, loose sleep over what they mean, and draw conclusions. There are ONLY bad things in store for scientists that are consistently drawing the wrong conclusions. Everyone does every now and then, but if you're consistently wrong, you'll essentially be expelled, because you won't be able to get funding from the NSF and DOE (or NIH, or DoD, etc.). There is no incentive to be wrong for a scientist. The opposite. A scientist that wants to keep their funding is going to do everything to not be wrong. And wrong is not related to opinions, it is related to what conclusions they can draw from the data, nothing more, nothing less.

Scientists DO try to be smarter than the other guy, because it'll give you everlasting fame. But the fall they make when they are cheating will also be that much harder. (Google Jan Hendrik Schon - no one ever heard of him after his Bell labs time...)

On the other hand, if you're the smartest scientist around and you are able to show (with data, unambiguously) that all the others are wrong, you'll be both having a hard time AND be admired for the rest of your days. And likely get a Nobel prize in the end.

It surprises me that so many people are so full of themselves that they claim to know better than those whose expertise, daily life, livelyhood, and headaches depend on it.

It's like the average man in the street, or even a physicist professor, telling the brain surgeon he's wrong and should do things differently. The audacity of that is clear.

It's the same for climate science.

That's my $0.02. As a scientist.

 

[GrumpyDad]

On the other hand, if you're the smartest scientist around and you are able to show (with data, unambiguously) that all the others are wrong, you'll be both having a hard time AND be admired for the rest of your days. And likely get a Nobel prize in the end.

No, that's not correct. People with degrees and positions in research or instruction DO NOT like to be wrong. Ive yet to run up to an engineer or doctor and tell them they are wrong and received a positive response. That lone wolf will be targeted and ousted. The person that can change the group think is part scientist, part salesman. It's more rare to change everyone's minds, even if they are blatantly wrong and you have the data to prove it, sadly.

I literally changed an entire industry based on research that I was blasted for and ousted for. I never went back.

 

[stoveliker]

As I said, no one likes to be wrong.
You'll have a hard time, but when your data show that the others were wrong, there is also admiration.
This may be field dependent, to an extent, but it's my personal experience that this is the case. One has to argue hard, based on data, but if one is correct, that will be admitted. Why? Because the new view will be tested by further experiment and analysis, and either that confirms it or it falsifies it. It takes time, but it is my experience this is what eventually happens.

These things are not "one and done"; a new view will be put to the test - and many will try, because if there is one lone wolf saying "y'all are wrong, THIS is what's happening", and that lone wolf is wrong, you'll get stature by showing (with new (!) data) that that lone wolf is wrong.

In science, the main incentive is to get it right. Because getting it right gives one stature.

I have no idea how industry works in this respect.

 

[woodgeek]

No, that's not correct. People with degrees and positions in research or instruction DO NOT like to be wrong. Ive yet to run up to an engineer or doctor and tell them they are wrong and received a positive response. That lone wolf will be targeted and ousted. The person that can change the group think is part scientist, part salesman. It's more rare to change everyone's minds, even if they are blatantly wrong and you have the data to prove it, sadly.

I literally changed an entire industry based on research that I was blasted for and ousted for. I never went back.

Sorry to hear that GD.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. In an academic (i.e. tenure) situation, you DO get credit/kudos for finding mistakes and fixing them... and the entire research process at the top level is 100% figuring out how you are wrong all the time. If I'm not wrong about 3 things before lunch every day, I'm not working hard enough.

But I know scientists in corporate labs (like my former students and colleagues) who describe a very different environment....

Example: I know a guy that went to work at a (huge) skin care products company. They did R&D for new products, and tried them out by having some model rub the lotion on their face, and having the result evaluated by multiple 'judges' on various 'metrics' like smoothness and clarity, etc. They would then judge 'scientifically' that product A was better than B, so they could make better products.

My friend did image analysis, and was hired to develop a machine vision systems to replicate what the judges were measuring. After much work, he determined that his measures were not at all correlated with what the human judges were reporting in each A/B test. And yet the judges WERE correlated with each other...suggesting that they were measuring something real. Huh, weird.

My friend realized that the judges were not 'blinded' re which product was which. He did a study in which the judges were blinded regarding which was product A and which was product B, and the correlation between judges, or between the scores by the same judge over multiple trials completely disappeared! This means that their scores were all actually garbage, random noise. The only reason they were correlated was bc they were all biased to give the 'new' product a better score. Clever Hans.

And the company had been using this method for decades. My friend didn't last long in that division.

 

[bholler]

No, that's not correct. People with degrees and positions in research or instruction DO NOT like to be wrong. Ive yet to run up to an engineer or doctor and tell them they are wrong and received a positive response. That lone wolf will be targeted and ousted. The person that can change the group think is part scientist, part salesman. It's more rare to change everyone's minds, even if they are blatantly wrong and you have the data to prove it, sadly.

I literally changed an entire industry based on research that I was blasted for and ousted for. I never went back.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are talking about scientists in industry. But allot of what we are referencing is done in academics. Yes in industry if you put out research that hurts that industries bottom line or image it isn't going to be received well.

In the academic world if your research is valid and get peer reviewed and published that will get you praise as well as further funding.

The motivations are totally different. That isn't saying that there isn't allot of good research done by industry because there certainly is. But many times it will never be seen by anyone outside that company if it would potentially hurt the business.

As an example why do you think the majority of info out there dismissing human influenced climate change is put out by fossil fuels companies? And how many of them are actually peer reviewed and recognized by any respected scientific organizations?

 

[begreen]

No, that's not correct. People with degrees and positions in research or instruction DO NOT like to be wrong. Ive yet to run up to an engineer or doctor and tell them they are wrong and received a positive response. That lone wolf will be targeted and ousted. The person that can change the group think is part scientist, part salesman. It's more rare to change everyone's minds, even if they are blatantly wrong and you have the data to prove it, sadly.

I literally changed an entire industry based on research that I was blasted for and ousted for. I never went back.

Lumping engineers and doctors in with research scientists is a false equivalent again. Sure there are egos in any field of endeavor, but they are not necessarily the rule.

I personally know research scientists (and doctors) that can humbly admit they are wrong and will when it happens. I've known one research scientist for almost 40 yrs. that is very humble in spite of helping develop effective medicines for several diseases. The neurosurgeon that operated on a friend's son was amazing. In spite of being one of the best in the country, he was incredibly open about how much we still have to learn. Stop sucking on lemons all the time. There are good people in the world too. The bad ones may get your attention, but by in large people are not as bad as this implies.

 

[stoveliker]

I have yet to meet a human being who likes to be wrong...

 

[SpaceBus]

I have yet to meet a human being who likes to be wrong...

Depends on what they are wrong about. I think many climate researchers would be thrilled to be wrong about the warming trend, as opposed to the consequences of being correct about it.

 

[woodgeek]

Depends on what they are wrong about. I think many climate researchers would be thrilled to be wrong about the warming trend, as opposed to the consequences of being correct about it.

And in practice, there is happy news. The sensitivity to forcing (like °C/doubling CO2) has been estimated for decades, and had a distressingly large uncertainty back in 1980s. More recent work has been zooming in on the lower end of the older uncertainty range, which is very good news. If the upper range from the 1980s were true, we'd already be toast.

 

[stoveliker]

Before the above gets misinterpreted, that was not a case of "they were wrong".
They knew what they knew, and they knew the precision (reliability) of what they knew. Within that, the current more precise knowledge is still consistent with the less reliable knowledge back then.

It is good news indeed.

 

[begreen]

I think one issue is that the media distills things down to soundbites and these tend to stick, even if incorrect. Global warming and climate change are poor catchphrases. A phrase like Anthropogenic Climate and Environmental Disruption is more descriptive, but big words tend to trip some, so call it ACED.

 

[joop]

then they would lose there funding.i'm such a bitter old fart lol

Depends on what they are wrong about. I think many climate researchers would be thrilled to be wrong about the warming trend, as opposed to the consequences of being correct about it.

 

[woodgeek]

then they would lose there funding.i'm such a bitter old fart lol

Ah, but the one I know has tenure, and would be just fine...

FYI, I do research on govt contracts, and depending on the contract, I get paid between 0 and 4% extra salary per contract. I just pitched a $18M proposal in DC, and it will pay me ZERO salary for the next 6 years if I land it.

 

[SpaceBus]

then they would lose there funding.i'm such a bitter old fart lol

And? Those scientist would move onto something else. Did you cry when stagecoach builders went out of business?

 

[joop]

YES YES I DID