GlobalChange.Gov--US Impacts Summary

10,520 views
10,260 views

Published on

4 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • I agree that the slides don't really make the case for a convincing climate model and are only showing images of shit dying or getting ruined and attributing this to global warming, buuuuut - you must realize that these pretty pictures would never be published in an international, peer-reviewed journal as THE argument for global warming. Think about who the audience is - policy makers and the general public... Do you think this audience would take anything away from a meeting where nobel laureates flipped through slide after slide of partial differential equations with different boundary conditions and solutions? If one were so inclined to find 'the science' behind it, it's not like it's a secret. This stuff is published in journals that are read, reviewed, and discussed by research scientists from many different disciplines. Do you think they tolerate bullshit? Do you know how hard it is for a concept to make it to publication via peer review? You have to convince a lot of very smart people with dissenting ideas. So, obviously, the slides aren't the science, and I'm guessing they were used to help the big wigs at the meeting try to connect the dots. I think the academic community has made a big mistake in underestimating society's capacity to absorb complex information - and it has cost science its legitimacy to a certain degree. But think about this, too. What benefit would anyone get out of fooling the public into thinking that humans are adversely affecting our collective habitat, and that we should be more careful and stop certain outdated activities all together? I'm curious to know what you think 'the scientists' ' intentions are?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This study was managed by a biologist. How does that equate to a climatologist or meterorologist. The science of weather and climate is very complicated and not linear (as many would think...especially a biologist).

    The funny thing is that people have more of an impact on another greenhouse gas (atmospheric moisture). Society impacts precipitation and temperature patterns by how it influences moisture (condensation nuclei and where precipitation forms) more so than a slight increase in CO2, which most likely is a part of a natural process (in fact, research states that temps rise first, then CO2).
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • This figure is misrepresenting the studies behind it, you paste together time series with DIFFERENT resolutions, DIFFERENT measurement error and DIFFERENT calibration methods!!! There are some well-known issues relating to this! In natural sciences, this is usually referred to as a intellectual manipulation. Unacceptable! If you do a cross-calibration and resolution adjustment and plot the error bars you will see something very different!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I have been following the science of climate change since the first IPCC report in 1988. The photos in this slide show are pretty devastating - we are just at the beginning of a long and unpleasant ride I fear.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
10,520
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
84
Comments
4
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Analysis of air bubbles trapped in an Antarctic ice core extending back 800,000 years documents the Earth’s changing carbon dioxide concentration. Over this long period, natural factors have caused the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to vary within a range of about 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm). Temperature-related data make clear that these variations have played a central role in determining the global climate. As a result of human activities, the present carbon dioxide concentration of about 385 ppm is about 30 percent above its highest level over at least the last 800,000 years. In the absence of strong control measures, emissions projected for this century would result in the carbon dioxide concentration increasing to a level that is roughly 2 to 3 times the highest level occurring over the glacial-interglacial era that spans the last 800,000 or more years.
  • ×