Effects of Global Warming ??

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kache Walk

So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively.

Any links to this kind of research? Love to read more.

[Gelfling]

Originally Posted by Kache Walk

That's my answer to the thread. You can stop there. But if you want to hear something REALLY INTERESTING, keep reading.

So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively.

Actually.......I find this very interesting! The same happens in other cases....such as religion and politics (disclaimer: these are only examples and I do not wish to discuss them openly on this forum). Can you offer a link or reference a book on this study so I can look at this more?

A more popular example of this ideal.....that happens on this forum: mono vs cat.

I find myself more on a `neutral front` more times than not.....but I have noticed this phenomenon many times.

[Kache Walk]

It is interesting, isn't it? Do a search for recent research from a guy named Dan Kahan from Yale Law School. Also, there is some info here: www.culturalcognition.net - home

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kache Walk

So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively.

Essentially true. And, I am certainly a fool for expecting a forum overwhelmingly comprised of affluent self-indulgent white guys of middle-age or older (self included) to much care about something they won't be alive to experience.

The "I'm all right, Jack, I've got mine" crowd traditionally reject any position, true or not, that might at some point ask them to cough up a bit for the future.

But you do seem to have ignored the effect of a beautifully-executed oil-funded disinformation campaign, that has successfully repositioned any legitimate climate concern as a bunch of crazy lefty greens proposing impossible utopian solutions. Any campaign that can so successfully neutralize the advice of 97% of the subject matter experts is... brilliant.

But it's safe to hold such a selfish position. You'll never be held to account, except by history.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

No wonder 97% of all scientists say the same thing: they are all looking at the same data, they have received the same education, learning from from the same books. BTW 97% is not a scientifically valid hypothesis. PLS look up on Wiki and come back tell me what's wrong.

You don't know that they are all drawing conclusions from the same data set, nor can you prove it. You're just pirouetting on a lame hypothetical.

[Kenomac]

"So, research shows that for some science topics, climate change being one of them, whether folks believe it is happening or not is less connected to their understanding of the science and more associated with things like their perception of risk and their cultural identity. You can plot folks on a continuum between highly individualistic and highly communal and on a plot between egalitarian and hierarchical and find that folks in a particular quadrant will tend to look at climate change in similar ways. Fascinating stuff. The really interesting thing is that when you feed these folks more data, more information on climate change, they move further away from consensus - those who believe, believe more firmly, and those who don't believe become more rooted in their disbelief. This makes it quite interesting for those of us working in the field to communicate effectively."

Religion.... anchors, climate change, global warming etc. It's all the same, blah, blah, blah....

Sit back and enjoy the warm weather, it's damp and freezing here.

[Kache Walk]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But you do seem to have ignored the effect of a beautifully-executed oil-funded disinformation campaign, that has successfully repositioned any legitimate climate concern as a bunch of crazy lefty greens proposing impossible utopian solutions. Any campaign that can so successfully neutralize the advice of 97% of the subject matter experts is... brilliant.

But it's safe to hold such a selfish position. You'll never be held to account, except by history.

If this comment is directed at me, you don't have enough information to know whether I've ignored something or where I stand on this issue AT ALL. Don't presume to know my position on this or other issues unless I share it with you.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Do you remember when Einstein published his work, 100 of most prominent scientists signed a letter claiming he was wrong. Einstein's response was 'one, if he is right, is enough'. Time told.
e

Not the same at all though, carbon acting to reduce radiated heat through a gas was first put forward more than 200 years ago, it's not some new weird science. If the planet wasn't warming there would be a lot of people trying to figure out why not. The contention doesn't lie in "if", but how much and how sensitive. This site is a good one for anyone interested in a more sceptical view on the media "it's all worked out" side of things.
Climate Etc.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

That is pretty much my view of what the future should and could involve .

I have no problem with folks not sharing money , but to my mind of benefit to a society to share far more than has been done the benefits of technology that have created productivity and efficiency undreamt of even a generation ago.

The only purpose for folks working any number of hours (500 hours a week or 5) is because the work needs to be done (by the society) and it takes that long. Time was when being a peasant was a 24/7 job - the world moved on from that, no fundamental reason why it can't move on from a 35 hour or 70 hour week!.........apart from for ideological reasons .

Remember, if work was such a great thing the rich would be doing it all - if sitting on backside counting own cash works for some, why not for others .

Not saying that for your 15 hour week you get $1000 a week, but why not $500, plus free housing! and leave it up to each to decide whether that good enough for them or whether to work longer hours for more money and shinier toys.

We could call the 15 hour / $500 a week folks the Consumer Class .

My gut says that even at those hours we have too many people than are actually needed to run a modern country.......

My faith in you is restored.

This is the world our parents were supposedly working towards, wasn't it? A shorter work-week, more time for study, volunteering and personal growth. (And flying cars.)

Instead, it now takes 2 salaries instead of one to raise a family, the work-week is longer, and they're starting to raise the retirement age. I'd point out how one particular income bracket has made out handsomely while the average wage has stagnated or declined, but that wouldn't go over too well here.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kache Walk

If this comment is directed at me, you don't have enough information to know whether I've ignored something or where I stand on this issue AT ALL. Don't presume to know my position on this or other issues unless I share it with you.

It's a public thread; I'm addressing any who hold that position. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A few posts back, I linked to a site that mentions, claims, whatever that 97% of the world's climate scientists support the notion that the earth is/will experience increased warming due to human activity.

I bring it up only to hint that anyone questioning the climate-science is going against only about 97% of the people who actually study the stuff.

Based on that, I'm expecting some higher level of argument or proof from our resident deniers. And not getting it. Each has their own, special, unique and unsupported reason for denying the conclusions put forward by climate scientists. Sorry, just 97% of them.

Took some digging through your links - the 97% refers to a 2009 study by Doran. Not a very good study - they invited over 10000 scientists to answer a couple basic questions; got responses from about 3000; and parsed that number down to 77, of which 75 said "yes" - that is the 97%. Just 75 scientists!!!! If I asked 77 priests if there is a god, I'd probably get a similar result.

[avb3]

A good resource for those interested in the science involved that is used is available here.

It addresses many of the points brought up in this discussion, and discusses the science from a basic and intermediate scientific perspective, and in some cases, an advanced scientific analysis.

How does this affect sailing? This graphic from the site may answer that.



Figure 2: A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.


Weather is not climate, but climate affects weather. With the vast majority of warming going to the oceans, we can expect a change in weather patterns that have been established for centuries. That will affect sailing times, currents and winds.

Ask yourself the question. Why is the US military so conncerned? (source 1, source 2, and most important, the Pentagon's actual report - see page 84).


In addition, the insurance industry is also concerned about global warming.

Climate Change and the Insurance Industry

Climate-Proofing The Insurance Industry - Forbes

Quoting from this article:

Lloyds of London views climate change as the industry’s number one issue.

Although one can argue the insurance industry is looking for more profits, one can not argue that the Pentagon is wrong in planning for how climate change is and will affect their operations.

Like many sailors, weather patterns are a big factor in the military's operations and planning.

Perhaps we really DO need to take heed. Both of these organizations are facing consequences that are not based on conspiracy theories, but based on the need to deal with real issues.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Took some digging through your links - the 97% refers to a 2009 study by Doran. Not a very good study - they invited over 10000 scientists to answer a couple basic questions; got responses from about 3000; and parsed that number down to 77, of which 75 said "yes" - that is the 97%. Just 75 scientists!!!! If I asked 77 priests if there is a god, I'd probably get a similar result.

First, i appreciate that you bothered to check; most won't.

The 97%... it's just a number. May not be exactly correct, as you point out. BUT, there's really no dispute that a supermajority, a preponderance, nearly all climate scientists support the contention that human activity is having a measurable effect on climate.

So whether the exact percentage is 85%, or 105%... it's, like, enough, isn't it, that we should be taking them seriously?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Bertrand Russel.......1932... In Praise of Idleness.... Maybe 4 pages

You will like.


In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell

Awesome

Seems I am 80 years late with my thoughts!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by avb3

Weather is not climate, but climate affects weather. With the vast majority of warming going to the oceans, we can expect a change in weather patterns that have been established for centuries. That will affect sailing times, currents and winds.

...

Like many sailors, weather patterns are a big factor in the military's operations and planning.

Thanks for this avb3. I tried to make this same point many posts back. No matter the cause of global warming, the globe is warming. Sailors make decisions about routes and safe locations based on the past. But if we are in a time of climatic change, all of what we think we know may no longer be valid.

It's like the stories of Inuit hunters who can no longer read the ice conditions in the Arctic. Generations of traditional knowledge is becoming useless, or in some cases dangerous. It may making going to sea a lot more difficult for folks like us.