This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
Using your same analogy, it would also not be reasonable to conclude that 97% of two thirds of cooks know how to scramble eggs!
 
cynic said:
Using your same analogy, it would also not be reasonable to conclude that 97% of two thirds of cooks know how to scramble eggs!
Click to expand...
Correct - we do not use information we do not have.
Cook had no basis for saying anything about those who offered nothing on AGW. Thus, he identified this cohort and classified them according to the stated methodology.
 
And to take the scrambled eggs analogy one step further, were the examination to only ask for egg cooking recipes, without stipulating the need for them to be scrambled, then no certain claims, about knowledge of egg scrambling, could be reasonably made!

Note how closely your analogy relates to Cook's conduct, and his logically bereft methodology.
 
Last edited:
rederob said:
Correct - we do not use information we do not have.
Cook had no basis for saying anything about those who offered nothing on AGW. Thus, he identified this cohort and classified them according to the stated methodology.
Click to expand...
Incorrect!
Read the comment made under the heading "4. Discussion".
 
Climate Advice
'How do I break bad news about climate change?'
A six-step guide to honest and compassionate conversations.


Dear Sara,

Your column about the woman with the big beach house in Florida illustrates the difficulty of an honest conversation:

If we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the climate will continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for decades. And if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels soon, the consequences will be far worse and widespread. For example, Charleston, South Carolina, a city at sea level, is planning infrastructure for a 2.5-foot sea-level rise. If glacial ice starts to melt as quickly as some models suggest, the sea-level rise could be six to seven feet by the end of the century. Charleston would have to be relocated. Even with immediate action, a lot of the damage is already done.

How do we convey the long view to people who don’t want to hear it in a way that generates action rather than despair?

– Mark in Charleston

The challenge here is that because you have learned about climate change, you are now in the position to break the bad news to others.

It’s not easy to inform people that a beloved city may cease to exist in its present form. It’s also difficult to respond effectively to the feelings of grief, anger, and denial that such a message provokes.

Your question prompted me to think about another group of people who must sometimes deliver bad news: doctors. Over the years, doctors have developed step-by-step protocols for informing patients of life-threatening or terminal illnesses. One such protocol, known as SPIKES, is designed to help them build the trust of their patients, ensure that patients have an accurate understanding of their diagnoses, and work with them to choose a treatment plan.

A person with a life-threatening illness isn’t a perfect analogue for a city endangered by sea-level rise. But each of the protocol’s six steps offers useful guidance on how to deliver bad news with compassion and humanity. Let’s walk through them.

1. Mentally prepare to deliver the bad news
Imagine you’re a doctor with a patient complaining of back pain. She believes she’s strained a muscle. But after conducting tests, you now know that her back is hurting because she has breast cancer. How do you tell her that news?

According to SPIKES, the first step is to prepare for the conversation. Consider what you will say and how you will respond to an emotional reaction or difficult questions.

“You have to sort of think about the person who is going to be in front of you. If you know them already, you may have some idea of how they’re going to react,” Dr. Walter Baile told me recently. Baile, director of the Program for Interpersonal Communication and Relationship Enhancement at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, helped develop the SPIKES protocol.

The application to talking about climate change: Find out what you can about the people you’ll be speaking to. Prepare for the emotions they may feel when you show them frightening projections or suggest their community may not exist in the future.

One point to keep in mind: People who are hostile to the very concept of climate change get a lot of attention. But they actually represent only a small fraction of the U.S. public. About 80 percent of people are either worried about the problem, haven’t made up their minds, or don’t know much about it, according to my colleagues at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Those groups constitute your most likely audience.

2. Find out what the other person already knows
In the second step, doctors begin a meeting with the patient by asking open-ended questions. The goal is to determine the patient’s existing perception of her illness: “What is your understanding of the reason we took a tissue sample?” This step helps doctors identify the patient’s mistaken beliefs, if any, and craft a message based on what she already knows.

By phone, Baile added that it’s important for doctors at this stage to learn a little about the person they’re speaking with.

“What patients really value is being treated as people, not just as patients,” he said. “When they feel you are considerate of their personhood, so to speak, and their well-being, that helps instill trust.”

This step is also important for conversations about climate change. Rather than barraging people with scientific facts or arguments about why you are correct, first ask questions:

– How long have you lived in Charleston?
– What’s your favorite thing about the city?
– Have you noticed more flooding around the city?
– What have you heard about the causes of that flooding?

3. Seek an invitation to provide information
During the next step, doctors ask for consent from the patient to share the facts about their illness. Nearly all patients, according to surveys conducted in Europe and the U.S., want to be told the truth about their conditions — usually so that they can effectively plan for the future. But some people may find the information too difficult to hear, and those who reach an advanced state of illness may prefer not to be told all of the details.

The lesson for talking about climate change: In conversations with others, don’t shy away from mentioning your concern about climate change, but talk about it in a way that invites the other person to ask questions.

– Friend: What have you been up to lately?
– You: I wrote a letter to the editor about sea-level rise, and it got published in the newspaper.
– Friend: That’s great! But so depressing! What did you write about?

4. Share what you know
Now, a doctor will share what he or she has learned about the patient’s illness: “I’m sorry to tell you that when we took a look at the tissue sample, we found that you have breast cancer.”

The protocol contains two pieces of advice relevant to people talking about climate change. First, avoid jargon. Say “human-caused,” not “anthropogenic,” and so on.

Second, choose your words carefully to avoid unintended cruelty. For example, the protocol advises doctors not to say, “You have very bad cancer and unless you get treatment immediately you are going to die.”

Such a statement is absurdly blunt and clearly has no place in a doctor’s office. But it also bears an uncomfortable resemblance to messages we often hear about climate change: “We must cease greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible or there will be catastrophic consequences.” Either one may leave the listener feeling angry and apt to blame the messenger.

Try using more compassionate language: “The climate problem is serious, and that’s why it’s important for all of us to work on a plan to address it.” You might also add that there is still time to avoid the most dangerous consequences.

5. Address emotions
“Responding to the patient’s emotions is one of the most difficult challenges of breaking bad news,” the protocol says. “Patients’ emotional reactions may vary from silence to disbelief, crying, denial, or anger.”

Like breaking bad medical news, sharing frightening information about climate change is likely to provoke an emotional reaction. You can address those emotions by acknowledging their presence, giving people space to express them, and offering validating or empathic responses.

– You: The ocean could rise by as much as six feet during the lifetime of our kids. Unfortunately, if that happens, a lot of Charleston will either go underwater or have frequent flooding problems.
– Friend: That’s horrible to think about.
– You: It’s hard for me, too. I wish I had better news to share.

By acknowledging and validating others’ emotions, you can help them remember that their reaction is normal and that they are not alone.

“People are frightened, and they’re confused at times, and what they really appreciate is kindness,” Baile said.

6. Make a plan
Whether you’re breaking bad news about cancer or the climate, the last and most important step is to work with the other person to come up with a plan.

At this stage, doctors discuss treatment options with patients. The goal is to decide, together with the patient, on a plan that aligns with the patient’s values. For example, some patients may not wish to pursue aggressive treatment if the likelihood of success is poor and the side effects severe.

When you talk with people about climate change, it’s similarly important to discuss what can be done to address the problem, seeking a plan of action that aligns with the person’s values.

– Friend: I feel so worried about what will happen to my son.
– You: I worry a lot about my kids, too. I usually feel better when I do something with that feeling, like going to talk to city planners about the problem. Would you be interested in coming with me the next time I go to speak with them? Your son would be welcome to come along.

Bonus advice
When I spoke with Dr. Baile, he offered a final piece of advice that wasn’t in his original protocol.

Doctors, he said, often empower family members to become allies of a patient. Family members can take small but effective actions, such as helping the patient get plenty of rest.

The same strategy, he said, can be useful to people who are speaking up about climate change: “Find out who your allies are,” he said. One person’s voice may be ignored, but a chorus of warnings — especially from those well known to and trusted by the listener — is harder to dismiss.

Wondering how climate change could affect you or your loved ones? Send your questions to sara@yaleclimateconnections.org. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.
 
cynic said:
Incorrect!
Read the comment made under the heading "4. Discussion".
Click to expand...
I know Cook's work inside out, and do not make the mistakes you do.
Your inability to correctly identify what Cook presented was evident in your ramblings.
You are intent on making a links to irrelevances, and you are incapable of working out why it is a nonsense.
You never answer a question properly and think I cannot tell you are moving the goalposts.
When you are able to stay on topic I will address your issues.
Until then you can post as you like.
 
explod said:
Have you read the book?. If not how do you know?.

If uncertain ask a question
Click to expand...

You said that they can see that the rate of change has never been greater than over the last few years because they've been able to measure rock samples. Just take a moment to think about that. Do you think they've been able to get rock samples which show the average temperature of every year or decade for the last billion years?

Can you even begin to comprehend how much sense that doesn't make?

You are claiming someone can prove a negative with something which could never even begin to be considered a complete data set.

On the other hand, we actually do have evidence of massive climate change (the sea level fluctuations I mentioned - care to explain those?) which have repeatedly occurred over short amounts of time.

No one was there measuring temperatures, but I shouldn't even have to tell you that in the last 100 or 200 years, we haven't seen anything remotely like the degree of climate change which occurred to cause sea levels to fluctuate that much. How much have sea levels changed in the last 200 years? Virtually nothing, right? You can honestly crunch these numbers even in the most basic of ways (how frequently these massive sea level changes took place, how great they were, and thus the rate of change) and it becomes completely and unequivocably obvious that extreme climate change occurs naturally, without CO2 fluctuations, rapidly and frequently.

The climate myths are so blatant, but if you bother to look, even if you literally just look at what climate scientists all acknowledge as hard facts, the myths are dispelled.

Some people hear me say things like this an as has already happened they assume I am in the denier camp and believe all the nonsense they say (we can see examples of people doing that to me in this thread). Yes, their stuff includes a lot of nonsense. They also assume I disbelieve everything the climate scientists and alarmists say, we also see examples of that in this thread, but no, that's not true.

I literally only believe what there is hard evidence for and am agnostic about everything else, something almost no one on either side is willing to do, and doing so puts you in the middle of two sides which are so radically polarised and absurd that both of them look at you as insane. Both sides are insane and any sane person in the middle looks insane to both sides. It really is an absurd situation.
 
Erika A.P. Schreiber Retweeted National Snow and Ice Data Center
#seaice decline gets some of the most press with regards to #climatechange - but its not the only way the #Arctic is drastically changing
Click to expand...

watch the video
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b

Abstract

Key observational indicators of climate change in the Arctic, most spanning a 47 year period (1971–2017) demonstrate fundamental changes among nine key elements of the Arctic system. We find that, coherent with increasing air temperature, there is an intensification of the hydrological cycle, evident from increases in humidity, precipitation, river discharge, glacier equilibrium line altitude and land ice wastage. Downward trends continue in sea ice thickness (and extent) and spring snow cover extent and duration, while near-surface permafrost continues to warm. Several of the climate indicators exhibit a significant statistical correlation with air temperature or precipitation, reinforcing the notion that increasing air temperatures and precipitation are drivers of major changes in various components of the Arctic system. To progress beyond a presentation of the Arctic physical climate changes, we find a correspondence between air temperature and biophysical indicators such as tundra biomass and identify numerous biophysical disruptions with cascading effects throughout the trophic levels. These include: increased delivery of organic matter and nutrients to Arctic near‐coastal zones; condensed flowering and pollination plant species periods; timing mismatch between plant flowering and pollinators; increased plant vulnerability to insect disturbance; increased shrub biomass; increased ignition of wildfires; increased growing season CO2 uptake, with counterbalancing increases in shoulder season and winter CO2 emissions; increased carbon cycling, regulated by local hydrology and permafrost thaw; conversion between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; and shifting animal distribution and demographics. The Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its 20th Century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic. The indicator time series of this study are freely downloadable at AMAP.no.

====================================================
pictures excerpted ......rest of this article is good reading for the thirsty.....

 

You know you're mindless when you follow protocols for how to have conversations with people.

Do you need any more of an obvious slap in the face to alert you to the reality that you are allowing yourself to be controlled by the media? It is literally giving you a template for how to interact with other humans and you are following and advocating for it.
 
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ure-permafrost-sea-ice-wildilfe-ecology-study

"...describe how warming in the Arctic, which is heating up 2.4 times faster than the Northern Hemisphere average, is triggering a cascade of changes in everything from when plants flower to where fish and other animal populations can be found."

" "What stands out for me is an intensified hydrological system," said Jason Box, a climate scientist with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and lead author of the study, published today in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.

Warmer temperatures have shifted forest and tundra growing seasons, boosted rain and snowfall, increased melting, accelerated glaciers and possibly even increased the number of lightning strikes that could increase the risk of Arctic wildfires in the tundra and boreal forest, Box said. "I think this is a clear signal due to climate warming," he said.

Following are snapshots of some of the changes underway across the region."

Bering Sea 'In a State We've Never Seen Before'
Commercial fishers and the indigenous population of the Bering Sea region are feeling how Arctic change is spilling out of the polar region.

During two consecutive years of record-low sea ice, coastal communities lost the ice buffer that protects the land from winter storm surges. Pollock and cod, two valuable fish species, may be running out of spawning habitat in the Bering Sea, and it's not clear they've found a replacement area.

Less sea ice and warming farther north have a domino effect in the Bering Sea, said Jim Overland, a climate researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"In the past, you had sea ice growing in the fall, with northerly winds that helped grow ice. Now, with the delay of Arctic-wide freeze-up, you don't have the pre-conditioning for the Bering freeze-up. Combined with unusual storm systems, you can get these off-the-charts changes in the Bering Sea," said Overland, a co-author of the study.

"Last year, with no sea ice and no pool of deep, cold water, pollock were found in the north Bering Sea where they don't usually go. The question was if they will they spawn in the new location or not, and it doesn't seem that they did," he said. "When this happens two years in a row, it becomes really important. The Bering Sea is now in a state we've never seen before." "



"The new paper helps to show how the Arctic is a connected system affected by global warming, said National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Twila Moon, who was not involved in the study.

"It's causing coastal erosion that eats away at community land, and, in some cases, causes building and infrastructure loss," she said. "These Arctic changes are also affecting people and communities far from the Arctic." Coastal flooding in the U.S., for example, is worsened by sea level rise that is fed by melting Arctic ice sheets and glaciers.

Warm Winters Put Spring Closer to Melting Point
Looking at temperature changes across the seasons, the researchers documented an Arctic that is warming 2.8 times faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere in the cold season, and 1.7 times faster in the warmer months.

The higher rate of cold season warming can be traced to the delayed freeze-up of sea ice, Box said. The relatively warm (compared to ice) ocean water increases moisture in the atmosphere, forming clouds that trap warmth near the surface. The warming in the cold season reduces the overall "cold content" in the Arctic, like leaving the freezer door open. When spring starts, snow, ice and permafrost are already closer to the melting point, he said.

Thawing permafrost creates another climate risk: As long-frozen organic material starts to decompose, it releases methane, a potent short-lived climate pollutant, as well as CO2, both of which contribute to more warming."



" In recent years, scientists have measured record-high annual average temperatures in the top 10 to 20 meters of permafrost at many measuring sites, with the biggest warmup in the coldest parts of the northern Arctic. At three sites on Alaska's North Slope, data in the study show that the freeze-up of the active permafrost layer (which thaws in summer and freezes in winter) now comes two months later than it did in the mid-1980s.

Changing Flowering Times and Snow Cover
The study found "strong evidence that the summer warming trend is causing an earlier and more condensed flowering period of key plant species," leading to mismatches between plants and pollinators, as well as making some plants more vulnerable to harmful insects.

Over time, that could fundamentally change the composition of Arctic vegetation, which in turn would affect animals that depend on those plants for food.

The data also contain widespread evidence that snow cover has been declining in the Arctic at a rate of two to four days per decade over the past 30 to 40 years. The trend is stronger the farther north and the higher up you go, Box said. Most of the decline is due to earlier snowmelt in spring, but a later start to the snow season is a factor in some areas, particularly in the eastern Canadian Arctic."


Overall, spring (May and June) snow cover extent has decreased by more than 30 percent since 1971, with evidence of increased ice-layer development in some parts of the Arctic because of more frequent winter thaw and rain events. A decline in the snow cover outside the growing season can make plants more vulnerable to extreme winter temperatures.

Loss of Sea Ice Also Has Ripple Effects
The decline of sea ice is one of the most closely tracked indicators of Arctic change. The new paper describes how, over the past half century, it has shifted "from an environment dominated by thick multi-year sea ice to one dominated by thinner first-year sea ice, with an earlier start to the melt season and a later start to the freeze-up."

A study published April 2 in Scientific Reports digs into one of the ways global warming is affecting sea ice formation and transport.

Off the coast of Russia, sea ice forms as cold winds blowing off the big landmass chill the water. At the same time, the winds push the newly formed ice near the shore northward toward the central Arctic. Over months, those drifting floes pile up to form thick ice that can last through the summer. But with a warmer atmosphere and ocean, more of that newly formed ice melts before it gets out of the formation region, said Thomas Krumpen, a sea ice physicist with the Alfred Wegener's Institute, who scoured satellite images to show changes in the transpolar drift current."



"The breakdown of the ice transport will have impacts on Arctic Ocean ecosystems because the ice formed near shorelines carries with it minerals and tiny biological organisms, including plankton and algae, "like frozen spinach packed in ice," said Eva-Maria Nöthig, an AWI oceanographer who studies the biology of the Arctic Ocean.

"The ice floes with all these particles inside are getting thinner," she said. "All the organisms, from fish at the surface to benthic organisms 4,000 meters deep, who need the sea ice for their development will be gone." "
 
Joules offers a detailed scientific account of how the Arctic is changing and the speed of this event.
A short summary of what is happening ?

Forget “early warning signs” and “canaries in coal mines” – we’re now well into the middle of the climate change era, with its epic reshaping of our home planet. Monday’s news, from two separate studies, made it clear that the frozen portions of the earth are now in violent and dramatic flux.

The first, led by veteran Greenland glaciologist Jason Box, looked across the Arctic at everything from “increased tundra biomass” to deepening thaw of the permafrost layer. Their conclusion: “the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its 20th Century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic.” To invent a word, the north is rapidly slushifying, with more rainfall and fewer days of hard freeze; the latest data shows that after a month of record temperatures in the Bering Sea, ocean ice in the Arctic is at an all-time record low for the date, crushing the record set … last April.

The other study looked at the great mountain ranges of the planet, and found that their glaciers were melting much faster than scientists had expected. By the end of the century many of those alpine glaciers would be gone entirely; the Alps may lose 90% of their ice. From the Caucasus to the south island of New Zealand, mountains are losing more than 1% of their ice each year now: “At the current glacier loss rate, the glaciers will not survive the century,” said Michael Zemp, who runs the World Glacier Monitoring Service from his office at the University of Zurich.

One could list the “consequences” of these changes in great detail. They range from the catastrophic (Andean cities with no obvious source of water supply once the glaciers have melted) to the merely bitter (no one is going to die from a lack of skiing, but to lose the season when friction disappears will make many lives sadder). For the moment, though, don’t worry about the “effects,” just focus on what it means that some of the largest systems on earth are now in seismic shift.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/10/glaciers-arctic-ice-vanishing-radical-politics
 
Hi Sdajii, you do realize I am not promoting the agenda of GW, I am merely showing how these cult like people are pushing their agenda to vulnerable people using a psychological technique called Gaslighting. If you listen to this, start 7 minutes in for the meaty bit to begin. It is basically a nasty hypocritical style of a con.

I am simply highlighting how this GW propaganda machine works by showing some of their techniques. This is not science, this is cognitive psychology at work, although I am sure some would call it science. The science of manipulation.
 
Sdajii said:
On the other hand, we actually do have evidence of massive climate change (the sea level fluctuations I mentioned - care to explain those?) which have repeatedly occurred over short amounts of time.
Click to expand...
These were changes over thousands of years. We are now looking at changes at decadal scales.
Please provide your time-scale data rather than make sweeping, unsupported claims.
Sdajii said:
How much have sea levels changed in the last 200 years? Virtually nothing, right?
Click to expand...
Wrong.
At century scales please review Table 2 here.
However, you have not presented any data at all.
Frequency of event and rates if change of event are not the same. Moreover, even Nils Morner will tell you that significant eustatic changes in sea level can be driven by small global changes in temperature - smaller than that of the past century. His theory of redistribution of energy and mass via the ocean current system due to a feedback interchange of angular momentum explains this, but, as I said, it happens over many thousands of years.
So your claims are without merit and reflect basic misunderstandings of climate science.
 
If that is so, where is the hard evidence for your many claims that I have asked for on many occasions?
I link to the science showing you are wrong, but this does not appear to change what you believe.
Dissociative behaviour in climate science denial is worrisome.
Your ideas about "polarisation" are curious. A reasonable person would look at the scientific evidence and make a determination. Scientists provide this evidence so cannot be in the camp of a side which is "polarised". Those who accept the evidence would be siding with "knowledge." Those who do not must have a different belief system. I do not know what it could be, and as it manifests only in claims without substantiation, it does give cause for thought.
 
Just an FYI, your post was a perfect example of a straw man argument.
The subject of egg scrambling was never a search criteria in your reworking.
However, it could have been quantified as a subset under within all egg cooking recipes. Cook did this where AGW was the search criterion, and then sorted AGW into 3 different categories.
What you want to do is make assumptions about the other cooking skills of those authors who never had a recipe book which included eggs/scrambled eggs. Vegan cooking books will necessarily exclude eggs, but it does not mean the author was not a skilled chef and able to scramble eggs to perfection.
 
Despite finding this posted content highly disagreeable, I chose to respect your expressed decision to terminate our discussion.
But then you posted this...
How am I to, now, trust anything you post, when you have demonstrated to me, that you are either unwilling, or unable, to honour one of your recently posted commitments, for so much as a single day?!
 
cynic said:
Despite finding this posted content highly disagreeable, I chose to respect your expressed decision to terminate our discussion.
But then you posted this...
Click to expand...
Please note that I made no such commitment.
I will pull apart what you state as I see fit.
There is a difference between meaningfulling addressing valid points and showing that what you have written makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
469
Smurf1976
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
45K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Global Warming Bubble Stocks
Replies
6
Views
9K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...