Our Planet

[leblon]

 Just started watching a new Netflix show, "Our Planet". Was hoping for something relaxing, but it turned out to be not quite what I expected. The 1st episode is beautifully shot, but the narration keeps mentioning the effects of climate change on some of the species. The 2nd episode, "Frozen Worlds", is about Arctic and Antarctic and it is heart-breaking. Especially the final 10 minutes or so about walruses. Sea ice now retreats far to the north during summer months, and walruses are forced to rest on tiny slivers of land. The resulting stampede is horrifying. Many try to avoid it by climbing rocks and fall down to their deaths. Very disturbing. 

I wonder what the climate-change deniers' reaction is when they see such shows. OK, some of them don't watch nature shows at all, they only watch football. But many are educated. So what do they say? "Die, walrus, die?" 

Comments

[chaource]

The phrase "climate change deniers" is constructed on purpose to conflate two quite different ideas: 1) people who do not agree that any climate change is happening and instead say that it is just a local fluctuation of weather, 2) people who agree that climate change is happening but do not agree that the change is primarily caused by industrial CO2 emissions. This conflation was introduced when IPCC was formed; the "CC" in IPCC means "climate change", and they defined the phrase "climate change" to mean "anthropogenic climate change". The previously used term "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) was then discouraged. This made it easier to conflate the disagreement with the anthropogenic hypothesis (which is about the last 70 years being atypical) and the disagreement with the basic claim that basic climate variables (average temperature, sea level, precipitation, etc.) are monotonically changing on the scale of several centuries.

[leblon]

We are not talking about "change on the scale of several centuries". We are talking about "change on a scale of several decades". If you are denying that the latter is happening, you are essentially equivalent to people in group (1).

[chaource]

If you deny that this change has been happening since around 1700, you are in group (1). For example, I know from my visit to Iceland that the glaciers in Iceland have been steadily receding in the last several centuries. If someone says that the glaciers are melting due to CO2 emissions, they deny the climate change that has been happening long before industry become noticeable.

And if you think that the current climate data is sufficiently precise to detect a climate change on the scale of 20-30 years, you are a "statistics denier", so to speak. The natural fluctuations of weather are simply too high for that kind of determination to be possible. Reliable conclusions about climate change are possible starting from about 100 years of data.

[leblon]

No, it is you who are a statistics denier. Science can and did detect rapid change in climate since 1980 (that is, on a scale of around 40 years ago). Your political bias does not let you see this. But I have not desire to argue with you about this, it is pointless. Thanks for providing a data point, I expected something like this.

[chaource]

I made a calculation 4 years ago that gave me my opinion about whether we can scientifically detect a change of global temperature since 1980, and my answer was negative. (I am still trying to get my wife who has access to satellite data 1980-2020 to analyze some more variables in that time frame. One preliminary calculation about the circulation of wind velocity did not show much of a rapid climate change during that time.)

You didn't make any such calculations and didn't look at any data. You are just repeating the politically motivated groupthink because it makes you feel good in your current circle of acquaintances. You have no actual arguments about data and you will not engage in productive debate about data, because it's too discomforting for you, given your political bias. You don't actually care to filter out the truth from the propaganda because you don't actually care about understanding the climate. Thanks for providing a data point.

[leblon]

Your "calculation" is worthless, since you do not have the knowledge to do it properly. But keep on pretending that you know something the real scientists do not.

[chaource]

Your opinion is worthless since you have not even looked at what I did, even though you know that I am capable of doing such a calculation, and, since you followed my journal, you probably know that I have read some of the relevant climate science papers. I know what climate scientists are actually doing; you do not, because you are afraid to look.

But of course you can keep on pretending that CNN is a reliable source of information about politically important issues, and that science issues can be understood by listening to politically biased journalists motivated only by a desire to increase the clicks and the ratings of their shows.

Unlike you, I change my opinion whenever relevant data becomes available; not when the dominant groupthink demands that I do so. This is because my opinion is not bound to peer pressure; I don't have to fit in with my colleagues, and I'm not afraid to say what I think or to present data as evidence for my opinion, even if it upsets some people.

[leblon]

I do not know how CNN got into this (I do not get my information from CNN, and have no idea why you think that), but whatever. I find your opinions worthless too. It is laughable to think that someone like you, with a background in cosmology, no special knowledge of climate physics, and no desire to learn anything about it, could produce anything useful. But you convinced yourself that you managed to overturn the whole edifice of climate science. Dream on.

I am no longer going to respond to your comments.

[chaource]

Back in 1950, the scientific consensus was that the Arctic will be ice-free by 1970, and journalists predicted catastrophic warming and flooding. Back in 1970, the scientific consensus was that our planet is going to freeze due to climate change, which was supposed to make global temperatures very cold - and was also attributed in part to industrial CO2 emissions. Journalists predicted a new ice age. This turned around and by 1985 or so, the consensus was that the global temperatures are warming at an unprecedented rate. My conclusion is that I can't believe the journalists or the "scientific consensus", and that I need to look at the data myself.

I am sure you would have responded to my comments if you had something to contribute - perhaps, some comments about how to better model the data or its uncertainties, - but you clearly don't have anything to say because you never looked at the details. I would be happy to see that my modeling was somehow incorrect and that I overestimated this or that quantity.

This is because I want to find the scientific truth about climate, and I am willing to spend time reading papers and looking at the details - but you don't. You have a background in theoretical physics, which in principle enables you to understand the statistical methods used in meteorology and climatology. But you clearly have no desire to learn even the basic details about modern climate science and how scientists today actually process data (which I have). You have somehow convinced yourself, without looking at any data or reading papers, that whatever the pundits say on TV (the CNN was just an example of the mainstream consensus), or whatever the journalists say in movie documentaries about climate, is scientifically correct. You don't seem to be willing to engage in productive debate. Instead, you make appeals to authority and try to discourage me from voicing my opinion (even though I have something to justify it and you don't). This makes your side in this debate worthless.

[chuka_lis]

да, им все равно.

[yakov_a_jerkov]

Я "Our Plante" тоже смотрел. Согласен, что disturbing. Но, по-моему, все британские передачи о природе такие.

[alphist]

I think that most of those labelled "climate-change deniers" (at least the sane ones) are bothered by the "solutions" pushed to allegedly battle the climate change and certainly are not heartless people (the standard accusation from the left against anyone who disagrees) who wouldn't like to preserve nature. These "solutions" are typically various versions of socialism/marxism/statism with an environmental makeover. Moreover, none of them would actually achieve the stated goal of stopping climate change all the while costing enormously in resources and liberties.

Personally, I think that the only technologically and economically viable way to stop global warming would be to switch heavily to nuclear power (with as much as renewables as possible). Unfortunately, the very same people who claim that they want to save the planet are the ones most opposed to nuclear power.

[leblon]

This position sort of makes sense, until it does not. If "climate change deniers" held this position, they would not be climate change deniers and instead would lobby vigorously for more workable solutions to the climate-change problem. Instead what I see is flat-out denial. At least, the great majority of Republican politicians refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. This seems like an attempt to avoid doing anything rather than a reasoned response.

Personally, I think that this problem is precisely the kind of problem which cannot be solved without government intervention. That is, there will either be a "statist" solution, or no solution at all. For example, suppose I agree that nuclear power is the answer. There is no way to ramp up nuclear power quickly enough without government intervention of some kind. One also needs a global response and coordination between different countries. I do not see how to do it without a massive intergovernmental effort.

You do not have to agree with me. Perhaps you think some incentives to nuclear power industry would do the trick. But I just do not see conservatives who are worried about climate change and lobby for any vigorous measures. Rather, what I think is happening is this. In the heart of their hearts, conservatives agree that there is no way to solve this problem in a non-statist way. But since it contradicts their ideology, they invent all kinds of excuses not do anything and lobby against other doing anything, consequences be damned. After all, it is easy enough to convince yourself that there is no problem, after all.

[alphist]

My impression is that the republicans are greatly mistrustful of the claimed magnitude of the problem, so while many of them would acknowledge (at least in private) that climate change is real, what they seem to think is that it is not the end of the world apocalypse that's screamed from every corner. It is not an unreasonable position in view of the numerous predictions of the climate-related end of the world which failed to materialize in the last few decades. As we know one shouldn't cry wolf too often. On top of that, they're themselves victims of the groupthink mentality. Finally, many of them have relations with the fossil fuel industry.

Actually, I do agree with you that such a problem as global climate control is unlikely to be solvable "without a massive intergovernmental effort". However, I certainly don't think the solutions proposed even move us in that direction. Moreover, I would actually go further in that I suspect that the majority of the politicians "concerned" about climate change are only using it to push their agendas which have nothing to do with the environment (and would actually make the situation worse if implemented).

So what should be done? Well, first the hysteria should be brought down a notch as it's simply alienating people who would certainly be on board otherwise. Second, people should stop pushing for socialism as a conditio sine qua non which will solve the problem for the same reason (not to mention that it will solve nothing). Third, viable solutions should be studied and implemented like incentives for the nuclear industry (one can learn from other countries which are successful in this like France and South Korea), just simplifying and standardizing the licensing procedure in the US alone would be a huge step forward. Tax breaks for this industry (and for the renewables). Perhaps pumping money into it in other ways as well (e.g. removing restrictions on the export of this technology). Some serious study of possible geoengineering projects to modify the climate. For example, I've seen that a very reasonable (from the economic standpoint) project would be to disperse aerosols in the stratosphere which would act as a shield against the sun. I'm quoting from memory but if I'm not mistaken this alone would reduce the average temperature by a degree or two while costing 20 or 30 billion (peanuts on a global scale). There are many other actual steps one can do which would at least mitigate the problem. Clearly, they would require a collective effort, however, I doubt that any but the most die-hard libertarians and anarchists would object against this.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where banning airplanes and preventing cow flatulence are the discussed solutions...