post

Busting Climate Myths : The Psychology of Denial



Debunking myths about Climate Change is a crucial factor in closing the gap between public and scientific consensus. The good news is that the gap is narrowing quickly. How do we know that? Because dedicated scientists like Dr John Cook, founder of the Skeptical Science website, have been studying the psychology of denial and taking real polls among thousands of everyday folks for well over a decade. This week we talk to Dr Cook about the psychological tactics used by the fossil fuel propaganda machine and we discuss his brand new book entitled Cranky Uncle vs Climate Change, which teaches us how to overcome the obstacles.

Help support and influence the growth of the Just Have a Think initiative here:

View all Just Have a Think videos here :

Links to Cranky Uncle

Links to Skeptical Science

Consensus Handbook

Climate Change in the American Mind

University of Queensland Online Course enrolment

#crankyuncle #climatecrisis #actnow

#Busting #Climate #Myths #Psychology #Denial

Some Toughts (48)

  1. Avatar
    added on 7 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism by LENNART BENGTSSON, VLADIMIR A. SEMENOV, OLA M. JOHANNESSEN [link]. Excerpt:

    The Arctic 1920–40 warming is one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the twentieth century. Over some 15 yr the Arctic warmed by 1.78C and remained warm for more than a decade. This is a warming in the region comparable in magnitude to what is to be expected as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades. A gradual cooling commenced in the late 1940s bringing the temperature back to much lower values, although not as cold as before the warming started. …this warming was associated with and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to southwesterly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea….the increased winds were not related to the NAO, which in fact weakened during the 1920s and remained weak for the whole period of the warm Arctic anomaly. …the process behind the warming was most likely reduced sea ice cover, mainly in the Barents Sea. This is not an unexpected finding because of the climatic effect of sea ice in comparison with that of an open sea but is intriguing since previously available sea ice data (Chapman and Walsh 1993) did not indicate a reduced sea ice cover in the 1930s and 1940s. However, as we have shown here recent sea ice datasets [Johannessen et al. (2004) give a detailed presentation] actually showed a retreat in this period.

    This next item was presented at the Arctic change workshop in Seattle in 1997 as “Arctic Warming” During 1920-40: A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications by Sergey V. Pisarev and was briefly mentioned previously [link]. This rich source of information is briefly described in the index:

    The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts:

    * retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost

    * decrease of sea ice amounts

    * acceleration of ice drift

    * change of cyclone paths

    * increase of air temperature

    * biological indications of Arctic warming

    * ease of navigation

    * increase in temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters, entering Arctic Basin."

    Ref https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

    This 1920s warming in the Arctic has been effectively ignored, not least because pre-satellite climate monitoring of such a massive and remote area, in such inhospitable conditions was scant. A few small ships reporting on millions of square miles. How could accurate ice coverage be measured? How could melted water on top of ice be delineated from sea water? How could the extent of ice seen reliably show that there was no ice beyond it for hundreds of miles?

    The evidence from the time contains strong evdence of a significant warming in the Arctic during the 1920s.

    How certain are we that todays global warming is not a direct function of satellite monitoring being compared with the previous much much more limited and subjective meathods?

  2. Avatar
    added on 10 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    14 minutes in and they still talk about the authors' bio…

  3. Avatar
    added on 11 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    why has it become a political opinion, that is why nobody can agree on this, people have turned it from science to politics, which means nothing will ever happen.

  4. Avatar
    added on 12 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Validity of consensus science ?!?!?

    Opening monologue 🤦

  5. Avatar
    added on 13 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Some of the rebuttal evidence on the site are ‘cherry picked’ as much as the skeptics. They are random excerpts. The science should be explained with how the data, variables and control sample were established. The site could create more sceptics. Grumpy father in law I’m sure could come up with and equal number of articles etc. Quoting CNN as a source is hardly convincing.

  6. Avatar
    added on 13 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Everybody start evaporating water in the sun. China is taking over and only a flooding and rapture by FIRE can stop them

  7. Avatar
    added on 14 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    What are you talking about specifically? First we heard it was global warming, then we hear its global cooling then we hear its climate change. The stories from the fake news media abounds and they all are hypocritical to each other. We know there are global elitist that are trying to push the narrative. Let's dissect this discussion: Are you trying to say Man Made Climate Change or Natures Climate Change? People can think own while using common sense that everyone should know we as mere humans cannot change much of the climate without nuking at once the entire planet. We cannot stop the earth from tilting which gives us the seasons. We cannot stop tornadoes, typhoons, and hurricanes from causing mass destruction like the fake news media says (using their own fallacious words to push this lie) "The typhoon when it hits will be like 500 atom bombs going off". We cannot stop the rotation of the earth which gives us dawn and dusk. We cannot stop the oceanic currents. We cannot stop solar winds and thermal atmospheric differential which causes wind on our planet. We cannot stop the tides which are directly caused from the moon. We cannot stop volcanoes like in 1816 Volcano: Mount Tambora blew up which spread volcanic dust around the globe which was a year that gave the entire planet a year without a summer. Remember that? Aside from dropping thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet at once which has never happened or we would be all dead right now, we as humans can only do very little long term damage to the planet. Recently California, Amazon rain forest, and Australia have burned. Those fires were arson as reported. When nearly almost the entire land based parts of the world are destroyed then yes there would be some change but since its arson that would point the finger back at the BS artist global elitist pushing their climate change whatever agenda. Remember that everything grows back no matter what anyone does. Just the facts not fiction please. It can be only one and not the other.

  8. Avatar
    added on 15 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    I don’t think climate change is the problem but a symptom of a deeper problem – namely the exponential growth of capital while treating limited natural resources as unlimited and treating the earth as an unlimited sink for waste products. That is a mouthful but is the real consequence of the business model running the human world. Capitalistic business has too much production capability – outpacing the earth’s capacity to keep up! Global warming is only one aspect of the total problem and might even be the least of of it. Other consequences of the expanding domination of capitalistic enterprises include: destruction of massive aquifers created by 11000 years of glacial melt water; destruction of natural soil with petroleum based fertilizer, insecticide resistant crops that produce foods with adverse health effects, deforestation leading to loss of plant and animal species unprecedented in 65 million years, micro plastics pollution in the water and air, massive refugee populations from wars for resources, and the list goes on indefinitely. And of course global warming is a problem weather man made or not. The accounting model for the world wide economic systems is due for a major revision to put it nicely 😳

  9. Avatar
    added on 16 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Yes, climate change is happening but there is another mechanism available other than CO2 emissions. Arrhenius's thinking was based on the assumption that CO2 is a driver of past climate cycles. There are many climate scientists who see irregularities in this simple conclusion: see 'A Causality Problem for Mikankovitch'. This paper suggests another mechanism is at work and that Milankovitch warming occurs only at the very end of glacial termination. "Feedback loops" had to be invented to account for the missing energy. The creation of CO2 was one of them but with no clear mechanism. The sudden melting and retreat of maximum glacial extent circa 20,000-years ago doesn't correlate well with CO2 as the driving mechanism. It is only because no other mechanism can be thought of, that it has become the default ideology.

    If you think my reasoning is wrong then please provide a reference to a scientific paper.

    The difference in distance from the Sun in Earth's orbit varies from 1% to 5%. This difference in energy heating the oceans is negligible relative to the energy required to produce 5km high glaciers across the polar regions.
    A modified theory of gravity is a better fit. Periodic extra tidal strength transports heat from the equator to the poles. This drastically increases precipitation which falls as snow and accumulates into advancing glaciers.
    The glaciers are always melting but when the extra snowfall stops an interglacial occurs. Antarctica has seen a 10% increase in snowfall over the last 200 years which indicates the world is entering the next 100,000-year cycle. The warming in mid and high latitudes is further indication and supports the hypothesis. It can be easily tested by accurately measuring tidal heights which I predict are steadily increasing.

    Professor Ghez (UCLA) is close to announcing that Einstein's theory of gravity is wrong.
    https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/einstein-general-relativity-theory-questioned-ghez

  10. Avatar
    added on 16 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Love the work you are both doing! Thanks for caring — ¡and taking action!

  11. Avatar
    added on 16 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

    ― Michael Crichton

    “I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    ― Michael Crichton

  12. Avatar
    added on 19 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    The regulations i my country are taxes on co2 for the common man. I don´t see how this help the climate, when the money arent used for new forest. But please explain

  13. Avatar
    added on 19 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Brilliant 🙂 The one thing that has consistently made talking about climate change difficult in my social world has been the variation in the depth and or quality of 'personal research' each individual has undertaken prior to each conversation. Most common thing I see is people leaning toward information that agrees with their current beliefs which in turn makes it unlikely that some will be willing to look at other information/sources. So, I think the idea of John's cartoon vids are a great idea and offer quality information in a less intense, competitive and/or large scale personal research format.

  14. Avatar
    added on 19 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Climate change denier was a term coined by the fascist socialists in Germany and used to perpetuate state propaganda. The idea was to manipulate the psychology of the individual towards a common goal controlled by the state, or typically speaking some inbred pedophile banking families that wanted slaves through taxation. This was right in their records taken out of their vaults. Climate change denier was a term formed for the use of psychological abuse and to force people towards the state agenda.

    "We (UN IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy…" "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." – Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer IPCC Co-Chair of working group 3. Nov 13, 2010 interview

    "Communism is the best to fight global warming" – Michael Bastasch – UN climate chief – 15 Jan, 2014

    "Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model." – Christiana Figueres – United Nations Climate Chief

    "Food is power. We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize." – Catherine Bertini – UN world food program executive director

  15. Avatar
    added on 20 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    Climate change occurs – I have no issue with that at all. What I have an issue with is the claim that climate change is driven predominately by anthropogenic causes. For 20 years, I have asked the various "doomsday" climate scientists who have predicted any sea-level rise of 1 m or more over any period up to a century to explain where the energy required for land-based ice melt comes from. Oft times I have given them a rough set calculations that derive the energy requirements for that ice melt to give just a 1 m rise and the best answer so far has been "Interesting, I'll get back to you about that" and that was 20 years ago and no actual other response from that expert.

    Just on back of the envelope calculations and actual studies of energy retention within the oceans to drive this process, to melt the required amount of land-based ice would appear to give rise to a global atmospheric temperature rise of somewhere between 200 degrees Celsius to 700 degrees Celsius. I have also looked into historical records for markers of extreme weather conditions and the indicators are that between 170 and 120 years ago, the extreme weather was as prevalent if not more so than in the last 20 so so years. It just affected far fewer people.

    We have far more pressing matters to be concerned about than worrying about climate change per se. What has been interesting is that greed has given rise to building in areas that 50 or more years ago, were considered totally unsuitable for uses due to the prevailing weather conditions of the time. We now see many of these areas being used for population purposes and so when extreme events do occur we have major catastrophes arising.

    As far as computer models are concerned, based on my professional experience over the decades, I will treat all such models (in fact any computer models in any area) as suspect until they have been publicly examined by a variety of well-trained computer professionals in conjunction with subject matter experts from all appropriate fields. It is far too easy to stuff up any computer model. I have seen this occur far too many times over the decades and these models can be a monster to try an fix. Even simple things like numerical analysis can often be missed.

  16. Avatar
    added on 20 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    I have found that in life unless something is affecting someone personally and tangibly changing their comfort zone they just dont care. They dont care what happens 10, 20 30 years down the road. If its not in their face making them suffer personally then they just glaze over and dont want to hear about it.

  17. Avatar
    added on 24 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "Hill Strongr" typed "explain where the energy required for land-based ice melt comes from".

    ——————-

    land-based ice melt is irrelevant. It'll be melting in the ocean:

    5.5 * (1,200+300) / 360 = 23 mm /year

  18. Avatar
    added on 24 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "Alan Lowey" typed "there is another mechanism available other than CO2 emissions. Arrhenius's thinking was based on the assumption that CO2 is a driver of past climate cycles<babble>This paper suggests another mechanism is at work and that Milankovitch warming<babble><babble><fart>"

    ————-

    Here are the numbers worked out by scientific analysis for the most recent de-glaciation that started 20,000 years ago and ended 8,000 years ago. The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcings/feedbacks of the most recent de-glaciation were:

    0.5 +- 1 w/m**2 8% Milankovitch cycles orbital eccentricity, axial tilt & precession of the equinoxes changes

    forcing (what pulled the trigger that started it)

    3.5 +- 1 w/m**2 53% ice sheets & vegetation changes albedo-change feedback

    1.8 +- 0.3 w/m**2 27% CO2 change feedback

    0.4 +- 0.1 w/m**2 6% CH4 change feedback

    0.4 +- 0.1 w/m**2 6% N2O change feedback

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    6.6 +- 1.5 w/m**2 total

    Note that huge 53% ice sheets & vegetation changes albedo-change feedback, more than half the total of all warming causes. That's how albedo reduction (less reflective) feedback
    runs away once it has been pushed to a start enough by other causes. That 6.6 w/m**2 of total imbalance plus water vapour & cloud feedbacks is what increased Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) by ~5.0 degrees from the depths of the glaciation period "Ice Age" 20,000 years ago to the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago. I calculate it as +4.5 degrees using the +ve feedbacks of +100% for increased H2O gas & +20% for reduced cloud cover with warming, which is what fits 26 paleo-climate proxy analyses best as the central result (+/- 33% is the range) and the extra +0.5 degrees (extra +11%) is something else that I don't know or cloud change +ve feedback is quite a bit more than +20%. Anyway, it's a very good approximation and entirely obvious.

  19. Avatar
    added on 24 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "Alan Lowey" typed "there is another mechanism available other than CO2 emissions. Arrhenius's<babble><fart>Milankovitch warming<babble><babble><fart>"

    ————-

    The warming is measured by 3,800 self-profiling floats called "Argo floats" and is +0.11 degrees / decade for the shallowest 750 metres. The stratosphere is cooling. The 1st gives the quantity (averaging 396,000 gigawatts for the last 22 years) and the 2nd gives the cause. Only an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    An increase in solar radiation cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    A decrease in global average cloud cover cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    A decrease in air pollution aerosols cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    No increased form of energy entering Earth's atmosphere from space can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    No decreased form of energy entering Earth's atmosphere from space can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    No increased form of geothermal heat can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    An increase in heat leaving the oceans cannot simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere.

    Only increased atmospheric GHGs can simultaneously warm the oceans, warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere, and that is what's been happening the last 50 years.

    It's the smoking gun for increased atmospheric GHGs being the cause.

  20. Avatar
    added on 25 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    "Alan Lowey
    " typed "<babble>The equatorial waters are cooling <babble>"
    Alan Lowey is (hey, what a surprise) a liar. All regions of the global ocean are warming. If anybody (except coal/oil shill-fuckwits of course) is interested then ask me and I'll provide some interesting information about ocean warming. It just happens to be my main study since I noticed 8 years ago and it's what I've been posting for several years but I stopped because zero interested audience. It's been eclipsed by the Arctic Amplification huge effect, but it's the 2nd most dramatic change behind Arctic Amplification. No doubt about it.

  21. Avatar
    added on 26 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    * PART 2 OF 2 *

    Here's the sequence of events, some definitely linked and others possibly linked:

    – 1995 AD the start. Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds began increasing.

    – Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds have increased 30% (1 m/s) since 1995 AD.

    – The ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly rate DOUBLED at ~1999 AD (ocean started warming twice as fast as before ~1998 AD
    ).

    – There was a massive increase in sea ice extent loss rate at 1997.5 AD as seen in that plot at 9:15 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEawfpDoD0&t=42s

    – Huge 1997/98 El Nino started soon after 1995 AD
    .

    – Arctic Ocean summer sea ice extent loss rate massively increased at 1997.5 AD as seen in a plot at 9:15 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCEawfpDoD0&t=42s

    – GMST increase slowed. ENSO change caused the "pause" or "hiatus" (that's why global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than in models).

    – GMST ==El Nino years== started pulling ahead of La Nina faster at +0.23 degrees / decade vs +0.165 degrees / decade.

    – Sea level change rise (SLR) of the ==western== equatorial Pacific Ocean has been much higher than the global average because the stronger Pacific Equatorial trade winds are pushing the water westwards harder than pre-1995 AD

    – Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) mass loss more than doubled in 1997 AD,

    – Arctic region warming at latitude 67N 1958-2019 sped up to +0.94 degrees / decade from a lower earlier rate ~1996-1998

    – Southern westerlies strengthened & tightened on Antarctica soon after (perhaps the Antarctic circumpolar westerlies began strengthening & tightening then but I haven't pinned ENSO as the cause yet).

    – Actual "global warming" is 0.11 degrees less than model global warming because the WG1 climate scientists didn't replicate that Pacific Ocean – Atlantic Ocean wind coupling effect in the CMIP models. I don't know whether they've corrected that in CMIP6.

    – Almost certainly has affected the Indian Ocean dipole with this additional wind push westward so will likely increase drought in Australia due to moving the warm rising air more often further to the west than before.

    —————–

    All happened soon after 1995 AD
    when the tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed and boosting the ENSO.

    —————-

    The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled between the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean, but the Tropical Atlantic Ocean and the Tropical Pacific Ocean aren't coupled because there's land in the way

    ENSO is a massive feature of Earth's climate and the GMST trends have been:

    +0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017

    +0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017

    +0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP)

    +0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP)

    +0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points)

    +0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)

    +0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)

    +0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)

    +0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)

    +0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)

    +0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.)

    —————-

    +0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)

    Note the +0.23 degrees / decade for El Nino years since 1995 and only +0.165 degrees / decade for La Nina & ENSO-neutral years. A big difference.

  22. Avatar
    added on 26 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    * PART 1 OF 2 *

    Standard level 0 (bottom-of-toilet level) coal/oil shill-fuckwit (or Russian oil troll, whatever) entity "Alan Lowey
    " typed again "<babble><fart> The equatorial waters are cooling https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/06/24/pacific-ocean-cold-tongue/ <babble><fart>"

    —————-

    Alan Lowey
    is (hey, what a surprise) a liar. All regions of the global ocean are warming. If anybody (except coal/oil shill-fuckwits of course) is interested then ask me and I'll provide some interesting information about ocean warming. It just happens to be my main study since I noticed 8 years ago and it's what I've been posting for several years but I stopped because zero interested audience. It's been eclipsed by the Arctic Amplification huge effect, but it's the 2nd most dramatic change behind Arctic Amplification. No doubt about it. Here it is yet again & for the umpteenth time in 6 years that I've attempted to clue persons in to this huge occurrence in 1995 AD (I've been posting this 6 years now with zero interest from anybody at all even though it's huge). It's all caused by the warming equatorial Atlantic Ocean surface which has been boosting the Pacific Ocean massive trade winds since 1995 AD, as follows:

    —————-

    ENSO has "strengthened" since 1995 due to Pacific trade winds (Easterlies) having started increasing in average speed since 1995 and now 1 m/s faster than before 1995. This was the main cause of the "hiatus" or "pause" between 1997/98 huge El Nino and very large 2015/16 El Nino.

    —————-

    Quote: "Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. "We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean," said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) at the University of New South Wales."

    —————-

    The Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started increasing in 1995 AD. Caused by the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean surface due to global warming (1995 AD is 25 years after the carbon burn rate started increasing and also after Clean Air Acts reduced "global dimming" air pollution a bit).

    —————-

    Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus

    Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014

    Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations

    Quote: "Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake."

    —————-

    Aside note: There's an Aussie talk about Antarctic changes by the Matthew H. England above at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck8u1-XS9rM

    —————-

    Quote: "The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says."

  23. Avatar
    added on 27 Jul, 2020
    Reply

    A boss searched how his company worked. He asked what’s 2+2. Sales answered 3.98, engineering 4.0000, Manufacturing 4+/-.03, and accounting “What do you want it to be?” In climate change follow the money. The IPCC grants money to study Man Made climate change (not nature) with predictable results. It’s damn near impossible to separate out the bullshit, particularly since the self interested politicians waded in.
    Valid Climate mathematical methods should predict past climates accurately assuring reasonable future predictions. How did these models predict past climates? Do we have valid models? Are temperatures going to hockey stick (now proven erroneous), or level at a new plateau?
    In the extreme, man exhaling CO2 causes climate change and therefore zero emissions, to save man, it is necessary that man die. This is silly, so the argument is really about sustainable CO2 emissions, that is, what the planet can sequester. Then informed policy can be made.
    The zealots’ zero emissions policy is impractical and turns off reasonable people. If they were truly exemplary, they would exterminate themselves.

  24. Avatar
    added on 2 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    There was no anthropgenic effect that caused the Medieval warm period that lasted 400 years between 800-1200AD….mmmmmm must have been just a normal climatic cycle of the earth

  25. Avatar
    added on 3 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    fantastic video! have my algorithm comment

  26. Avatar
    added on 3 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    The similarity between the psychology of Climate denial and Covid19 denial are striking. The pandemic as a crisis has just unfolded around a 100-1000 faster, and has a less collective nature as individual areas/countries experiences have been very different based on their efforts. I have a little hope that the pandemics effects will so thoroughly discredit the 'deniers' (it's the same people doing both denials) and expose the danger these deniers present to the rest of us that they will be shunned and lose influence.

  27. Avatar
    added on 3 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    The IR reemission from the troposphere into space starts at 4000 meters. Below this altitude the greenhouse gas molecules lose there absorbed energy to nearby molecules before they are able to emitt energy into space. Above this altitude the density is low enough so that greenhouse gas molecules are able to emitt IR. The reemission altitude depends on the density.
    The theory of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect states that the IR remission altitude is increasing at a higher greenhouse gas concentration.

    Why should the reemission altitude rise at a higher greenhouse gas concentration?
    According to Kirchhoff's law on radiation the emissivity for each wavelength must correspond to the degree of absorption.
    Higher absorbtion grade means also a higher emissivity.
    It makes no sense that the emissivity is rising and also the reemission altitude.
    Without a lab experiment the theory is worthless.

    https://youtu.be/4PAbm1u1IVg

  28. Avatar
    added on 3 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    For some, accepting that the Greenhouse Effect is real is difficult.
    The following is what I use as a Global Warming “in a nutshell” intro for them:
    “Sunlight (photons) passes thru the Earth’s atmosphere, strikes the surface and is quantumly converted into heat and then gradually radiates away as infrared radiation (heat). The larger molecules of the atmosphere (carbon dioxide and such) interact with the infrared radiation at the quantum level and slow down the escape of heat back into space. Called the “greenhouse effect”, this delicately balanced process prevents our planet from being just a ‘ball of ice’ spinning lifelessly thru space.”

  29. Avatar
    added on 11 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    Sadly this applies to BOTH sides. Those who want to deny the reality of climate change pick and chose specific cases to present problems while simultaneously refusing to look at the bigger picture. Conversely, even the UN IPCC overstates the worst case (and therefore overstate the expected benefits) while failing to state a more accurate estimate of cost versus Benifit.

  30. Avatar
    added on 13 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    "B A" entity typed "….The theory of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect states that the IR remission altitude is increasing at a higher greenhouse gas concentration. Why should the reemission altitude rise at a higher greenhouse gas concentration?……"

    ——————-

    Your physics is wildly incorrect. The way you described the particle physics is all wrong. I've posted the actual mechanism a few dozen times in a 3-part comment but nobody's ever understood it because it's too many words for their brains to handle. It's unlikely that ignoramuses such as yourself will ever understand the so-called "greenhouse effect" because you don't have the basic education (and it's quite basic), you don't have the functionality and, of critical importance, you have zero interest in learning because you're all just socio-politicals. As always, my offer stands to explain this and thrash it out as necessary to anybody who asks who isn't a coal/oil shill-fuckwit like "B A" is.

  31. Avatar
    added on 13 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    The reaction to this article saying that if kept the present rate of deforestation and human population growth we would have between 20 and 40 years before near (or total?) human extinction was met exactly with this kind of reaction: denial. Repercussion as far as I have seen: Zero. Article published in Nature.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6

  32. Avatar
    added on 13 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    To me the most persuasive argument to widely adopt renewables and better land management practices is that there is no harm in doing so, furthermore even if the theory of climate change is erroneous we would still enjoy the benefits of cleaner air and less pollution. Another positive side effect would be the necessary dampening of commercial interests in political decision making.

    I feel one overlooked factor that can count against the adoption of climate change theory is the scientific culture itself. Mildy dissenting or slightly alternate views are shut down which does not lead to healthy science, which should always question its own conclusions or at least tolerate diversity of opinion.
    On the flip side, better policing of statistical manipulation in research studies for marketing/lobbying purposes (most harmfully in pharma) would give the public greater confidence in scientists as a whole.

    I've noticed also that feeling powerless can lead to a 'head in sand' attitude, so perhaps social justice for everyone needs to be accomplished to assist in reaching safe levels of CO2.

    Many thanks for your hard work.

  33. Avatar
    added on 17 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    No info. Conclusion: buy the book!

  34. Avatar
    added on 20 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    I do not believe in anthropomorphic climate change. I really don’t.
    I am open to having my mind changed. However, usually when I talk about this, people engage in various forms of insulting me. Sometimes people insult me directly and sometimes indirectly. Very rarely have I ever had any conversation with someone who was genuine in making arguments for man made climate change.
    It seems anti productive to me that issuing insults would convince someone to believe in the climate change argument. Rather, I believe that insults are not meant to convince their target but instead meant to warn a third party audience away from listening to an opposing opinion. Therefore I never feel like anyone is trying to convince me of climate change when they insult me.
    If you have an argument for why climate change is caused by human activity rather than by natural cycles beyond human control, I would love to hear it. If you’d like to prove my point and issue me an insult please know you’re not being effective.

  35. Avatar
    added on 23 Aug, 2020
    Reply

    It's too late. A +3C world is coming regardless. A better course would be planning now of how to survive that in world. The kids attending those BLM riots are spending a lot of energy and are distraction for the wrong cause. In a few decades they will realize that. when corporations are supporting your cause you should ask yourself ………..why?

  36. Avatar
    added on 5 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    note: this video does not actually address any climate myths – it just talks about a book and website which do that

  37. Avatar
    added on 7 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    Imagine getting here after trump took office and not knowing what the states were like before the insane dumpster fire..

  38. Avatar
    added on 8 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    How do you convince people that the effects of man made climate change is real? If they are 60 years or older, like me, I would just ask them to step outside and honestly tell me if the climate is far worse today than it was when they were children. I did just that and I saw for myself that climate change is not taking place. The weather, temperature, precipitation, clouds, etc. are all the same when I was a child. Within nonlinear variability, nothing has changed. This is called hard evidence. If I was told there were 100 dead bodies in my yard I could simply go out to my yard and see for myself if there are, in fact, 100 dead bodies lying in my yard. If there aren't any dead bodies then the hypothesis is wrong. It need not be debated any further. The climate is the same today as it was when I was a young child. Sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold. Sometimes it's wet and sometimes it's dry. Sometimes it's windy and sometimes it's calm. Sometimes it's cloudy and sometimes it's sunny. All of it within seasonal variability. Climate and weather are both nonlinear systems and operate under rules of chaos and complexity. Use what God gave you to survive through the world around you. Use your brain and eyes to gather true evidence. Stop believing in witches and ghosts!

  39. Avatar
    added on 12 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    jezuss. TWELVE minutes in, and NOTHING SAID !!!!! just sad. out

  40. Avatar
    added on 14 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    A non-biased conversation with Freeman Dyson about climate change models. He has no skin in the game. He has been studying this for 40 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

  41. Avatar
    added on 15 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    @ David Borojerc, go and read the Australia Senate minutes. The CSIRO has NO empirical evidence for Man made C02 Climate Change. A CSIRO Blog is not Empirical data, it is crap shoot to persuade idiot lefties to chant climate change with some false authority.

  42. Avatar
    added on 15 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    These sights shdw bn cmts

  43. Avatar
    added on 15 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    This is an echo chamber…. Orwellian

  44. Avatar
    added on 15 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    symptom vs cause – easy to confuse and confuses even scientists
    symptoms grow from changing climate – human causes ? human/industry waste of energy (excess heat) waste of materials (garbage/pollution) are obviously bad – trying to change these bad practises only because of climate change seems very short sighted & stupid. getting rid of pollution – how many millions of tons of plastic into the ocean before we stop single use plastics ?? isn't this an industry/corporate problem?? why waste time explaining these things to kids/moms/dads ??

  45. Avatar
    added on 16 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    A problem I see again and again regarding science communication in climate science, is that proper peer-reviewed scientific papers are often behind pay-walls, whereas climate-denying pseudo-science is always freely available. I see myself having to use Scihub over and over just for informing myself properly by reading the actual sources. Science should be a public good and freely available!

  46. Avatar
    added on 18 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    I wish John Robson of ClimateChangeNexus could see himself in all this!

  47. Avatar
    added on 18 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    You are so right when you say the effects of climate change have been noticeable since 2017. I was born in 1949 (71 years ago) and we had winters knee-deep in snow, less than 10 years ago we were shovelling snow off the streets, but last winter (2019/20) we didn't have any snow where I live in the Midlands (UK).

  48. Avatar
    added on 19 Sep, 2020
    Reply

    Really like your channel. Nice voice too!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.