CLIMATE CHANGE


< PRE-DRAFT+ >

Part of 🔗ecology.

Revisions:
    xxxxxxxx
    20190615 overview
    20190921 touch after meeting scientist saying "all self-respecting geologist are deniers"
    20210405 touch




*** CONTRA ("CC is not real!")

#POLEMICS


* "they're lying"

* who?
* why would they be?
* how could they disprove that? (don't make claims that cannot be disproven)



* "It's not real, CO2 was always in cycles". ... "It's a natural cycle"

Take a basic in statistics and data windows!
You need the "logarithmic" for the last pixel...
#cg

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm



* "they said this in the eighties"

How to disprove these things?

__________

How to prioretize the core questions for anyone?
#complicit




*** CONTRA-CONTRA ("Yes it is")


* ( Basic resources )

Good:
    * https://xkcd.com/1732/
    * "climate crisis in 10 charts":
        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/20/the-climate-crisis-explained-in-10-charts
    * "total match" if cross-linking CO2 to increase in temperature:
        [...]
    * basic breakdown of sources:
        https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/14/how-much-do-humans-pollute-a-breakdown-of-industrial-vehicular-and-household-c02-emissions/ :
            * """CO2 accounts for approximate 76 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency says that combustion (of coal, gas and oil) is the main human activity that releases CO2. Electrical production, which uses coal combustion for its generation, accounts for 32.9% of US CO2 emissions. Transport accounts for 34.2%, which is where oil comes in, as most transport (cars, trucks, planes and ships) relies on petroleum. Industry is responsible for 15.4% of emissions and residential/commercial for 10%."""
            * links to https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
            * ... and https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
    * [...] !!!!!! MERGE IN

Reading:
    * [...]



* "Claim Magnitude" is very high

"if this would be true, it would be very important, the most important topic of the time"



* How to establish "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS"?

    * almost all experts say it's true:
        * MISSING: ABILITY TO SHOW WHAT IS EXPERT CONSENSUS
        * AND ALSO HOW IT USED TO BE WRONG, IF YOU DOUBT IT, HOW TO DO IT, ETC

    * there are hints at valid counter arguments:
        * this gives a feeling of overturning the whole argument
        * this might either be true, but is probably totally untrue

________________

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107
Expert credibility in climate change


___________________

Why do (supposedly?) 98% of scientist agree on this?

Scientific truth is ultimately consensus based, but more complex:
    * replicability -- but what if you don't want to / aren't capable of doing this?:
        (as is happening now)
    * consensus can be misrepresented:
        (as is happening now)
    * [...]

It should be simple, with a rudimentary understanding of truth-making, to see consensus.

So:
    * How to show these better?
    * Who are the other ones? Who is running the "other" pages?





* ASSIGN TRUST BASED ON PAST CLAIMS
:
    * This became clear out of long term patterns.
    * The people who were saying this decades ago, have been shown to be right. (What are they saying now? Is that more relevant, then?)







*** PAD


Master of geology & climate denier ???

arguments:


    * "no self-respecting geologist says man-made climate change is real":

actually ... what is +uros point ?

https://skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html
"""
One survey of earth scientists found that while 97 per cent of  actively publishing climate scientists agree humans are changing global  temperatures, only 47 per cent of economic geologists (those who study  geology with a view to its commerical exploitation) concur (pdf). In fact, among all earth scientists, economic geologists are the most sceptical.
"""



    * the earth is not actually heating

:
    (???!!!) but how do you explain the weatherdata?
    "they just like the funding, and flying around"

    * "try running your own weather models (on linux)" !!!:
        (links uni hamburg model below)

    * [...]



software: planet simulator (uni-hamburg)

#dev #todo

"""
Here you can find the link for this climate model I mentioned. Has a very cool interface as well, I used to run and just watch it.
https://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/en/arbeitsgruppen/theoretische-meteorologie/modelle/plasim.html
"""




prediction making, prediction verifying

"""
The observations have tracked the predictions made

Which prediction, and which observation, and can you provide a source? Preferably a source that can confirm the predictions were made prior to the observations, for obvious reasons.

> The "corrections" to predictions using old data sets are simply updating the assumptions on emissions increases and forcing. The older studies actually predicted global emission output would be worse.
"""

https://www.facebook.com/oren.salomon/posts/10109769672993813?comment_id=10109769683502753&reply_comment_id=10109771157274303




IPCC cheats on data ?!

(same guy)
https://www.facebook.com/oren.salomon/posts/10109769672993813?comment_id=10109769683502753&reply_comment_id=10109771157274303

"""
Not sure whose graph you mean. The one I shared, as I said, came from the IPCC, whose data sets have rather famously been manipulated. Not just altered here and there to eliminate outliers and obvious errors and all that, but historical temperatures have been consistently adjusted downward and modern temperatures upward, i.e. all the adjustments have resulted in greater warming than would have been observed with the raw data.
"""



[!!] ask +uroš.herlec
(a geology prof)



sun function: solar cycle, solar minimum, sun spots, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
and "little ice age" connection?

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-re-about-to-experience-solar-minimum-here-s-what-that-really-means
""""
The solar cycle is based on the Sun's magnetic field, which flips around every 11 years, with its north and south magnetic poles switching places. It's not known what drives these cycles - recent research suggests it has to do with an 11.07-year planetary alignment - but the poles switch when the magnetic field is at its weakest, also known as solar minimum.
"""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum


<----------------------------------------- ((new))


arctic vs antarctic ?
(via: this right-wing "unsystem" dude)
ARCTIC = NORTH
ANTARCTICA = SOUTH (continent!)
-------------------
#toread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System


https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


* long term patterns climate change
* "ice growth" paradox ???
* [...]


https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate


https://www.nps.gov/articles/climatequestion03-1.htm