By Debra Chase
Some of the worst impacts of climate change that were thought to be events that could or would take place far into the future are here now, faster than expected, much faster than science predicted. The earth can no longer take the assault, and is reflecting a deep pattern of climatic instability that is showing up as extreme temperatures, massive flooding, mega storms, an accelerated extinction rate, and, most disturbing, are signs that the earth’s carbon stores are becoming more unstable. The headlines on climate change are astounding. Climate headlines from this year, most in the last month, are warning that fast action is needed. Headlines that should make even the toughest climate denier sit up and take notice.
US climate agency: 2016 on course to be hottest on record. Veteran Arctic biologist George Divoky described the change as a “train wreck you can’t look away from” warning an early spring would impact wildlife and tundra plants. “You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any,” he added.
Future Risk of Record-Breaking Summer Temperatures and its Mitigation A recent study published in February of this year in the Journal Climatic Change, shows that, “the frequency and intensity of heat waves or extremely warm summers is expected to increase as anthropogenically-driven global warming progresses.” The study shows that without drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions there is an 80% chance that summers in 50-55 years will be hotter than any recorded in the last 100 years. Consider the damaging effects to human health, more and longer droughts and losses to agriculture. Any person born in or after 1985, if right now you are 32 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average, in fact you may never see a cooler climate as 100° days become the norm. That should be an astonishing piece of news for anyone, with or without children.
From the Arctic to Africa to the Amazon, More Troubling Signs of Earth Carbon Store Instability “The time for debate is over. The time for rapid response is now. The Earth System just can’t take our fossil-fueled insults to her any longer.” This article by Robert Scribbler, warns of a never ending wild fire season and the destruction of earth’s carbon sinks. A serious trouble spot is the Siberian Tundra. The Tundra is one of the largest carbon stores on the planet and the fires there are severely damaging the area. Want proof? Read on.
Now The Proof: Permafrost ‘Bubbles’ are Leaking Methane 200 Times Above the Norm The Bubbling Tundra. “Swelling pockets in the permafrost – revealed this week by The Siberian Times – are leaking ‘alarming’ levels of ecologically dangerous gases, according to scientists who have observed this ‘unique’ phenomenon. Some 15 pockets have been found around one metre in diameter. Scientists say a ‘fountain of gas’ poured from jelly-like trembling earth in tundra on Belyy Island in northern Siberia.”
Siberian Heat Wave Thaws Dead Reindeer, Unleashes Anthrax Outbreak Unusually high temperatures in a northern region of Russia thawed the carcass of a reindeer, which has led to an outbreak of anthrax in the Yamalo-Nenets region in Western Siberia, the first anthrax outbreak since 1941. More than a dozen people, including children, have been hospitalized and 63 people have been potentially affected by the disease, which has already killed more than 1,000 reindeer.
Considering the viability of the infectious agent of anthrax – 100 years or more – and its resistance to the change of temperatures, “professionals assume that animals looking for food came across the site of an animal that died of anthrax and then infected each other,” the regional governor’s office said in a statement to the Siberian Times.
Extreme ‘Grey Swan’ Hurricanes in Tampa Bay: a Potential Future Catastrophe For anyone living in the southern coast, the gulf of Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, be concerned for your real estate. “A “black swan” hurricane—a storm so extreme and wholly unprecedented that no one could have expected it—hit the Lesser Antilles Islands in October 1780. Deservedly called The Great Hurricane of 1780, no Atlantic hurricane in history has matched its death toll of 22,000. So intense were the winds of the Great Hurricane that it peeled the bark off of trees–something only EF5 tornadoes with winds in excess of 200 mph have been known to do. However, hurricanes even more extreme than the Great Hurricane of 1780 can occur in a warming climate, and can be anticipated by combining physical knowledge with historical data.”
Devastating Droughts Continue as El Nino Subsides UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21, 2016 (IPS) – Although the devastating El Niño of 2015 to 2016 has now subsided, in many parts of Africa, Central America and Southeast Asia rains and harvests are not expected to recover until 2017. “We should expect future events to be less predictable, more frequent and more severe, starting with La Niña… The challenges to our response go far beyond humanitarian action,” said Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Many countries, the US included, have yet to take action on climate change. “The international community has to take responsibility, particularly the countries that are more responsible for (carbon) emissions.” In Southern Africa, El Niño has caused the worst drought in 35 years. Ertharin Cousin, Director of the World Food Program (WFP) shared her insights from Malawi on Tuesday, July 19, 2016: “I heard and saw firsthand the hardships and worries… El Niño’s impact in Malawi alone has been severe: 6.5 million people will endure food insecurity, almost 40 percent of the population.”
We Ignore Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Livestock Industry at Our Own Peril HELSINKI, Jul 19, 2016 (IPS) – According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, (FAO), the production of meat and other animal-based products is responsible for around 18 to 20 percent of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. FAO’s assessment is correct, animal waste and the use of nitrogen based fertilizers to grow fodder annually create about 6 million tons of nitrous oxide – 65-70 percent of our total emissions. The impact to global temperatures of this is equivalent to roughly two billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Still hungry for that steak? New research has concluded, If nations across the world increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables and limited their average weekly red meat consumption to just over 10 ounces, about 5.1 million premature deaths would be averted annually, in addition to drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records Two key climate change indicators — global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent —have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016. Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
The six-month period from January to June was also the planet’s warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century. Remember that goal of 2°? We are getting a little too close to it, much too quickly.
Climate scientists expected ‘nothing like’ this year’s record-breaking global temperatures ‘Massive temperature hikes, but also extreme events like flooding, have become the new normal’
The first six months of this year averaged 1.3 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average, compared to the agreement adopted at the Paris climate summit in December, 2015 to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible. This now seems optimistic, particularly as the actual action promised by countries could see the world’s average surface temperature rise by up to 3.1°C, according to a recent analysis.
However, Dr David Carlson, director of the World Climate Research Program said, “models of future warming had failed to predict the high temperatures recorded this year, suggesting they are under-estimating how hot the world will get.”
Arctic Sea Ice Melt “Like a Train Wreck” Says US Scientist Arctic sea ice levels are on course to hit a new record low as warming at the North Pole accelerates. The Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It looks like late June or early July right now,” said David Douglas, research biologist with the US Geological Survey. “Polar bears are having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice.”
As the Presidential campaign moves forward, whoever wins the race will be tasked with making decisions concerning climate change that will have lasting impacts for coming generations.
Can’t blame that on carbon emissions.
And, there is this… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Climate change is real… been happening for a few million years… I expect the folk in 1816 were very upset with the ‘trend’. But the blogs of that time were lost as the server was private, and erased.
From your link:
Yes… a few years of a minor trend… there have been mini-ice ages of several years in the past 400 years… climate change is real… we need to continue to look at causes… many may well be ‘natural’…
What we currently have is best explained by CO2/GHG buildup, and that’s being caused by human activity. But you’re welcome to make a case for a testable alternative.
Some past climate change in Earth history has been attributable to changes in GHG (both increasing and decreasing) levels due to natural causes.
Watching a program covering the ice core and sea floor mud drilling in Greenland. Scientist showing a 10 ft long mud core sample to the reporter covering many ten of thousands of years… showing alternating shaded bands. He explains that those shades – light then then dark and then light and then dark… going all down the core sample… are alternating periods of warming and cooling.
The reporter asks the obvious question: “so, if these warming and cooling periods have been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, then isn’t current climate change just part of that cycle.
The scientist (who, by the way, has his research and salary backed by his answer) reliably says “no, there is a steeper change in this last warming trend… the others had been more gradual.”
And of course the reporter reliably drinks that Kool Aid and fails to ask the next obvious question. “But the science and politics of global warming say it is man causing the warming, not man causing a steeper change to a warming period that appears to be part of a natural cycle. What do you say about that?”
And then the follow up question: “Since this is a regular natural pattern, shouldn’t we be working on adaption instead of advocating for changes that will not have any impact on global warming?”
Frankly: Watching a program covering the ice core and sea floor mud drilling in Greenland.
How about post a link to the program video or transcript or provide a title?
I can’t remember. I think it was a BBC program.
Here is an article that covers it:
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/
Okay. So I read it and read up elsewhere. I don’t get your point. Yes, Earth has been warmer in the past than it is now, and it has been cooler.
The researchers in the article don’t dispute that we are looking at a global warming trend. Your article doesn’t address whether the current warming trend is anthropogenic or not. The point of the article is what happened to the Greenland ice sheet at a different, relatively recent geologic time when Earth warmed. They conclude that for that particular warming interval, Greenland did not melt back so much, therefore the recorded sea level rise must have been attributable to some melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.
The bigger relevant context is why did these climate changes happen? For the Eemian period that you site, it was likely due to Milankovitch cycles, cyclic deviations in Earth’s orbit around the sun that occur over 10’s and 100’s of thousands of years. Milankovitch cycles are likely responsible for the recent ~4 recent cycles of ice ages that we have had, along with the interglacial warm periods, which includes the Eemian.
Milankovitch cycles do not explain the current warming trend. There is no other explanation for the current warming trend we are seeing except human generated CO2.
LOL. So your grasp is to explain way those previous cycles with the Milankovitch cycles theory? You say it is “likely”? (is that peer reviewed?)
But today there is nothing else “likely” other than industrialized man?
You will explain previous warming trends has having some fantastic explanation in the field of astrophysics, but limit the modern explanation to only big bad old industrialized man.
You see why it is so hard to jump on the global warming alarmist train?
It is defended like it is a religion, not science.
Frankly: LOL. So your grasp is to explain way those previous cycles with the Milankovitch cycles theory? You say it is “likely”? (is that peer reviewed?)
Read up. Milankovitch cycles. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand for this.
Frankly: It is defended like it is a religion, not science.
It is the best explanation to fit what is seen. The longer this goes on, the more likely it becomes that we’re looking at human caused global warming. How long would you like to wait before you’d be convinced?
If you are sure that it isn’t human-caused global warming, propose a testable explanation to show otherwise.
“Read up. Milankovitch cycles. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand for this.”
See, that’s the thing, wdf1: when someone clearly doesn’t understand a subject, you do have somewhat of an obligation to explain it to them; otherwise you’re just letting then wallow in ignorance. It’s when they’ve made it clear that they will not be swayed by new information that you can start with the “I’m not holding your hand” line.
Loki, you must be new here. Frankly has made it abundantly clear he isn’t swayed by facts on any topic that challenges his world view. wdf1 understands this as well and because Frankly is so self-righteous about his position, wdf1 is merely challenging him to be a grownup.
Loki: See, that’s the thing, wdf1: when someone clearly doesn’t understand a subject, you do have somewhat of an obligation to explain it to them
I can appreciate what you are saying, but I’m inclined to go only so far with Frankly. I don’t think he’s genuinely curious to hear from others who have spent time with this subject. His mind has long been made up about the subject and about those who might challenge him.
I am swayed by objective arguments and thinkers… those that acknowledge the logical problems with their positions and concede other points while making their own. Not those that deflect and ignore and keep digging a deeper hole of fluff to protect themselves from ever having to admit they might be missing something or that their positions and ideas are harmful to others… especially on a topic as complex and fallible as predicting climate and climate change impacts.
I am also completely defensive of liberals tendency to destroy free enterprise and industry while they half toil in government jobs… apparently believing the money paying their too large salary, and too generous and too early retirement, grows on the trees they cannot stop hugging.
There are a lot of people throughout the world that need to work. And liberals, including the large majority of scientists that are liberal, are taking a position that it is fine to sacrifice many jobs, and hence people, in the private sector in order to “save the planet.” While they are conveniently employed with their pay and benefits protected by the ruling class that they help get elected.
This crosses over to many of the social issues being debated… especially the poor urban areas where young people are violent and killing each other because the economy sucks and they have no economic opportunity.
This is the same or similar liberal impulses that prevent housing from being built and prevent commercial development because elite liberals want their gated European village look and feel. They get all hyperbolic over things like “sprawl” and “roadway carcinogens” and dangerous EMF signals and dangerous GMOs and … you name it. And all of it are ideas of elites to save the world for their selfish interests and the cost of so many others.
And they make up a counter lie that Global Warming will harm the economy more, and so it is okay to screw so many people out of work… including all the emerging economies.
Utopia is an exclusive neighborhood… those that cannot make it in… well too bad.
I can mention fracking and watch my liberal friends’ and family’s hair catch on fire. I say, but NG is cleaner than coal. They say we need to stop burning both. I say we have been fracking for 60 years. They say they don’t care. I say, how are the poor in colder areas going to heat their homes? They say “sustainable green energy”. I say it does not exist yet in enough supply and it is way too expensive. They say we need to tax more and start a big government programs to build more green energy and subsidize it for the poor. I say so global warming is just another method for liberals to grow the size of government, increase taxes and redistribute to people instead of them working. They say “pretty much.”
Frankly: I am swayed by objective arguments and thinkers… those that acknowledge the logical problems with their positions and concede other points while making their own. Not those that deflect and ignore and keep digging a deeper hole of fluff to protect themselves from ever having to admit they might be missing something or that their positions and ideas are harmful to others… especially on a topic as complex and fallible as predicting climate and climate change impacts.
The moment when I realized your stated position on this was bullsh*t is when you posted links in comments here to various articles that you suggested supported your position. When I read those articles, I found that they didn’t do so. It was as if you hadn’t read them, or hadn’t read them closely and critically.
For me, reading closely and critically can be laborious. It is a regular kind of activity for many scientists reviewing literature. I find myself re-reading and consulting other sources to check and counter check what is written. A conversation to explain and clarify scientific concepts is often a very extended back and forth of clarification.
If one disagrees, one attacks ideas, not people. The moment you start labeling those who challenge you (“They’re liberals!”), you’re attacking people. Attacking people isn’t about satisfying intellectual curiosity. Then it’s about winning an argument as public performance, much like a political debate, in order to try to win spectators to your position. You usually start attacking (labeling) people when you run out of counter arguments on logical, intellectual grounds, and when the discussion is about global warming/climate change, that seems to happen very quickly for you.
Frankly: And liberals, including the large majority of scientists that are liberal, are taking a position that it is fine to sacrifice many jobs, and hence people, in the private sector in order to “save the planet.”
Note the “liberal” labeling above. This is one place where you derail the scientific/intellectual discussion. For me, if the discussion is about global warming, and whether humans are causing it, then I am willing to demonstrate why I think that is so, and provide plenty of backing evidence. I note that your counter evidence usually ends up as crickets.
Instead you shift the argument to one in which scientists are being insensitive to the economic dimensions of a response. I don’t have much of a position as to which response is the most appropriate. That is an economic argument. I do think that some kind of meaningful response is called for, because otherwise we risk losing real estate and resources, and that’s an economic impact.
I find it interesting that you attack the evidence pattern for global warming as being somehow “liberal”. That’s like saying gravity is liberal. The same techniques and tools used to determine present day climate trends (the warming) are what oil/energy companies use to locate and assess fossil fuel reserves. What was sea level at different times in the past (depends on global temperatures), what kind of climate distribution existed at different times in the past so as to favor the production of fossil fuel.
As far as I’m concerned, global warming isn’t about whether we’re saving Earth or not. Earth will continue just fine, one way or another. It’s about whether we can respond to the issue in a way that minimizes the human impact.
You seem to relish in the idea of “disruptive innovation” and “disruptive technology” when it involves business models. Here is disruptive scientific knowledge that you seem reflexive to attack, seemingly because it introduces a disruptive factor that hasn’t normally been accounted for in business economics.
Can you show me (us) that global warming is not happening? or perhaps demonstrate that it is being caused mostly by other (non-human) factors?
Read this, and then tell us how you intend to adapt:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/02/15/if-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stopped-now-earth-still-would-likely-get-warmer/
Frankly: LOL. So your grasp is to explain way those previous cycles with the Milankovitch cycles theory? You say it is “likely”? (is that peer reviewed?)
Read up. Milankovitch cycles. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand for this.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/kolstad-carbon-tax-022814.html
Two good articles, neither of which I disagree with, but do nothing to answer the question I asked. I assume you’d rather divert the discussion, rather than accept the science, and then think rationally about possible approaches to the problem.
jberg – I am just being objective here. If we stopped burning fossil fuels today it would cause economic calamity and would not stop the warming trend. So then what exactly are you and others recommending we do?
You see, I think there is a lack of objectivity in the climate alarmist side. They are chasing political benefits, research dollars… or just feeling good that they won the rhetorical battle.
But the ONLY thing we should be working together on is adaption.
Alternative sources of energy will develop faster in the free market than they will with any government program or mandate. They will develop because people don’t like smog and pollution. They will develop because there are economic benefits. They will develop because there is profit to be made.
Did you ever notice that the Dutch do just fine living below sea level?
I don’t think the free market built those levees and dikes.
The cost of the current Dutch flood control system was about $7 billion, for a population of 1.7 million. So that’s the equivalent of about $1.44 trillion for the US population. Just about the cost of the Iraq war (a little less, actually). You prepared to spend that on adaptation? Probably a good plan. But I wonder how you would respond to a proposal for federal spending of that amount for adaptation to climate change.
I don’t know why you’re putting this out as an either/or choice. Reducing our use of fossil fuels isn’t an unreasonable goal for the federal government. Most of the debate has to do with how fast and by what means.
I’m not on the either or bandwagon, I am working to pull the wheels of the bandwagon that focuses exclusively on banning fossil fuels because it helps fools think “we are doing something, yippee Skippy!”
Forced reductions in the use of fossil fuels before alternative fuels are available in sufficient and reliable quantity and sufficient competitive pricing negatively impacts economic growth which in turn has a drastic impact on the human condition and the health of societies in general. It is a destructive feel-good liberal pursuit… like many of the same.
Sorry, I must have missed this part. Who wants to ban fossil fuels?
What ever happened to the Davis Climate Action Plan? We never hear anything about it any more.
It exists. It is manifested by changes in policy and groups like Cool Davis, which holds monthly meetings. The composting program recently put in place is one of those policy changes based on the Climate Action Plan.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/sustainability-program/climate-change
What I find sad about “climate skeptics” is that their points may or may not be valid, but the downside risk is huge and cannot be undone if they are wrong. I bet a large percentage of global warming is coming from the hot air coming from skeptics bloviating their positions unsupported scientifically.
I just got back from a week at Pearl Harbor meeting with senior military staff; not hippies, not Al Gore wannabes, not tree huggers. I was meeting with the senior staff from the PACOM to discuss the Pentagon’s position on climate change, you know what? Not a single one of these senior officers is a climate skeptic. They are actively taking measures to reduce the Navy’s GHG impact as a matter of national defense. The first ones to go when sea levels rise are our naval installations- you bet they are taking this seriously and we should too.
Reducing GHG is insurance. I suppose there is a chance its wrong, but the cost is relatively small and prevents an enormous long-term cost. That is what insurance is for…
I imagine they realise if they were a climate skeptic that they wouldn’t be employed very long or hold the same rank under this Obama administration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/
Some excerpts from the article, it sounds like if you’re in the military you’re forced to believe in climate change:
BP: Some excerpts from the article, it sounds like if you’re in the military you’re forced to believe in climate change:
If you’re the Navy, you have to consider sea level rise for port facilities. Even if you decide that the climate change issue is irrelevant, the military uses tremendous amounts of fossil fuel to operate. If they can diversify their fuel resources, then we’re at an advantage. See this video at 24:30 for discussion of how the Pentagon views climate change.
What I find sad about “climate change alarmists” is that their points may or may not be valid, but the downside risk is huge and cannot be undone if they are wrong.
Specifically what are the downside risks of actions by “climate alarmists” that cannot be undone? Enlighten us.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended).
and, if one goes back far enough …we had the ice age on this planet…and dinosaurs ruled the world and it was unbearably hot…
Ephesus in Turkey used to be a port city….and now one has to take an hour long (or longer? ) drive to get to it from the sea……and so it goes….so….?
of course, we should minimize poisoning our children and grandchildren, and protect what we can for others to enjoy, however, there are too many lies all over still… on both “sides” of this topic….
PS> climate change is a more apt moniker than global warming……and there are many things one could do to keep things more pleasant for all…
Marina – as MSO of a science based department, do you really believe your faculty lie when discussing their research?
No lying necessary. Science already admits that there is only circumstantial evidence that man is the significant causer of this cycle of warming… and that the climate models must be re-calibrated every year because they are inaccurate every year.
Science also admits that there is nothing we can do to halt the continued advance of global warming based on their models.
Lastly, science admits that peer review is inherently flawed and full of bias as proven by the corruption of liberal bias in the social science field.
Humans practice science. Humans are flawed, therefore science is flawed. Apply that to capitalism, math, democracy…
Frank, you are a master at dissembling and projection. Where did you get your degree – Trump University? Everything you say about science is wrong, and unless you can provide your credentials to discuss this intelligently, and show that you understand the science, then your opinions are less than useless.
In particular, I would really like you to give examples of “liberal bias” in physics and chemistry. Please proceed….
Um, what other kind of evidence would you prefer?
Ok: forecast in 1980’s, observed through 2009? https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
Also note hind casting referenced in that article, and the conclusion that “natural forcings cannot account for the increase in global temperatures in the second half of the 20th century….” But I realize that’s just “circumstantial.”
Not really. Oh, never mind. Believe what you want.
No, “science” doesn’t “admit” things. Peer review is far from “inherently flawed.” Your ongoing disparagement of peer review is bizarre, to put it mildly. It’s a functional system of editing, publishing, and commenting on research. There are venues for publishing outside of regular peer review (pay to publish) as well. This rhetorical device of dismissing scientific research because you don’t believe in peer review is either trolling on your part, or simply disingenuous. Not sure which.
Liberal bias in the liberal platinum standard of peer review. This is the device they frequently throw at the wall to stick when their liberal views (their “science”) is challenged.
If scientific peer review has known liberal biased in one science, then the mechanism is suspect in all science… because it is the same process.
Unless you can prove that peer review is a different process from science to science. Please proceed Mr. got my degree from some more elite university so I cannot be challenged for my “thinking”.
Right. Capitalism is a very flawed system, it just happens to be the best system ever devised in terms of benefiting the human condition.
Scientists would do well to adapt that same humility… they they are wrong almost as many times as they are right… and that small incremental rightness is what we call scientific progress.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-scientific-peer-review-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered/
Frankly, there is so much wrong with your last paragraph, it’s hard to know where to begin (fractal wrongness – look it up).
Your interpretation of what “science says” is laughably inaccurate. Peer review isn’t inherently flawed with bias, because it’s a process – individual researchers can be though, which is why peer review is used to check methodology and to verify results. If your peers are able to replicate the experiment with similar results, it speaks to the strength of the original hypothesis. Otherwise, it’s back to the drawing board to explain why the change occurred. If anything, peer review is applying the principals of the scientific method to a fellow researcher’s study. Frankly, I’m not sure if you know what the scientific method entails, based on what you’ve written, which probably explains your misunderstanding of the peer review process.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/
If it exists here, then it likely exists there. And it laughable when insiders obsessively deny this… through the view of what is likely the same or similar too myopic lens.
If you are a liberal and a climate scientist, then your bias will be to pick your way through your work in a way that more likely validates your worldview. That would be human nature.
A new study by the Pew Research Center :
Now scientists and of course those on the left of politics and ideology would say that peer review would help correct for this concentration of left ideological tilt in science; except it does not as proven in the social sciences.
It is the same peer review process.
And because it is the same process, it is also justifiably subject to the same criticism of lacking adequate objectivity and diversity of consideration. It is highly likely that both the work and the conclusions of the work support a left-leaning political agenda.
And then there is the money.
Don – you got me there. Science is more often right when compared to government. I will certainly agree with that.
http://www.sidecartravel.com/headerpix/desert001.jpg
Expanding desert in Western China
” This rhetorical device of dismissing scientific research because you don’t believe in peer review is either trolling on your part, or simply disingenuous. Not sure which.”
Or maybe hypertrophic amygdala, Don? The pentagon and CIA are certainly believers in the climate change model favored by mainstream science.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/science/earth/climate-change-report-outlines-perils-for-us-military.html?_r=0
http://www.nap.edu/read/14682/chapter/2
Sand desserts move. Always have, always will.
It can be helped by human activity — deforestation, over-grazing, (poor) farming practices.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-16/waterless-world-china-s-ever-expanding-desert-wasteland
Reading disability, Frankly?
Expanding at an increasing rate, because of climate change.
”
Sun Qingwei, China water and energy expert for the Woodrow Wilson Institute, laments that provincial authorities care more about building coal plants than dealing with climate change.
“The priority for the local government is to develop the economy, the GDP,” he said. “In fact, the policy itself is a cause of the desertification. They are encouraging the development of coal mining there, which has a huge effect on the water resources.”
Coal plants need huge quantities of water to produce steam for turning turbines. In western Inner Mongolia, Sun said, groundwater used to be a foot and a half below the surface; now it is about 330 feet down…in the end, with rainfall decreasing and temperatures rising, there may be nothing people can do to completely arrest the degradation of the land in northern China.”
“It seems stable from the outside,” says Wang. “But the underground water problem is like a time bomb. When it goes off, everything will be chaos.”
http://media-touchdown.cursecdn.com/attachments/3/179/635318189945764868.gif
Scientists’ annual physical of planet: ‘Earth’s fever rises’
“I think the time to call the doctor was years ago,” NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report, said in an email. “We are awash in multiple symptoms.”
“There is really only one word for this parade of shattered climate records: grim,” said Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb, who wasn’t part of the report, but called it “exhaustive and thorough.”
“One-third of Earth’s land mass had some kind of drought last year.”
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-scientists-annual-physical-planet-earth.html
Given that warming will induce a population migration towards the poles has anyone ever thought of building a big wall on our southern border?
Good idea. Adaption.