SCIENCE instead of opinion

Read the IPCC-report of the World Meteorological Organisation on extreme weather

easily found via Google

instead of getting opinions from whoever wants to vent his opinion

SCIENCE instead of opinion

Read the IPCC-report of the World Meteorological Organisation on extreme weather

easily found via Google

instead of getting opinions from whoever wants to vent his opinion

Thank you, Harry. By reading IPCC report 1990 in 1992 at Sopron Library, I decided to be an environmentalist :). Since then, I am a successful sustainability leader. Science instead of opinion is not the only legitim approach. Science has never won an election or was as influential than the views of people. Open discussions help more than religious fights. Understanding different perspectives is an essential capability of a researcher, as the critical thinking is.

Although it sounds right, science instead of opinion is not the only legitim approach. Science has never won an election or was as influential than the views of people. Open discussions help more than religious fights. Understanding different perspectives is an essential capability of a researcher, as the critical thinking is.

I am scared of the possibility where climate change deniers are the leaders as well as the possibility that the key decisions are made purely based on science. Common sense what leads to decisions and it is changing slowly.

From a KNIGHT of SCIENCE perspective, it is important to know what could potentially change skeptics' minds and this is the provided value of my question for you.

Robert -

Yes, science is currently not very popular, especially, it appears, among many conservatives in the US, and elsewhere, I expect. 

I think that an argument for the general population might be that when you frequently have events that are supposed to be rare, you have to consider, for example, "What does a 100-year flood mean?"  It means that based on the climate as it has been, the expected ('average') number of such occurrences would be once every 100 years.  A change in that likely comes from a change in the climate. 

To be rigorous, you need to know more about how those events are defined.  Say, 100 years over what region?  Also, I think Marilyn vos Savant once said it is unusual when something unusual does not happen. There are many such regions, for example. 

But it would seem it does not take a climate expert to question the frequency of supposedly rare events.

Climate scientists have worked to give us a warning, before climate change gets to the point of being more obvious.  So relying on the above to eventually convince enough people will likely be too late to prevent huge problems.  It would be best if people were to consider the consensus of opinions of climate scientists.  But human nature is a problem.  Watching the polar caps melt and living in denial is too often the norm.  It seems particularly unwise considering the potential consequences. 

Jim

I agree with Jim.

Also, the blind faith in science is an environmental issue - I mean people think that a new invention will solve the problem soon. "Smarter people," scientist and politicians should care about the issue, citizens responsibility is only living in happiness and pays their taxes. The deliberately created fog around climate change mainly helps this kind of thinking since the average John Doe cannot choose between opposing opinions especially if prominent people stated them. John Doe certainly will pick the one is the easier. Like in Rush Radio (a Republican radio) the reporter confuted the Pope's statement that we need to care about global warming with the following argument: "God wants us to use big trucks. Otherwise, he would not allow us to invent them."

Robert,

The geological history is full of records of environmental changes, movements of the lithospheric plates, plate separation and collision,  uplifts and subsidence, deep and shallow earth movements, including the quakes and faults, horizontal and vertical motions, glaciations and melting of ice, transgressions and regressions, sea level rise and fall and evolution and extinctions and many more.

Some last millions of years. Storm  deposits  fill the sedimentary record. Epeiric seaways transgressed the continents. The occurrences may not be in very quick succession. The earth is not in a hurry and these changes are not completed in the lifespan of humans. That's why biological life must adapt to the environment.

Melting of ice is a normal thing during the inter-glacial period, even if  now triggered by man. There are fossil  Jurassic wood in the Sahara. The  subsequent desertification was not caused by man

People in coastal areas may have to locate inland to high elevations although nowhere seems safe with winds and fires and flooding from heavy rains. Cold loving plants and animals will gradually tolerate warmer climates or...?

It is not a question of belief, the geological time,  earth history is running its normal familiar course, carrying its atmosphere, biosphere and lithosphere, and whichever expires by not coping goes.

Obianuju P. Umeji

Robert

There is a plethora of blog-sites with opinions. Let's keep ResearchGate devoted to science. It is the site where scientists meet and also store there records

Dear Harry, you would be surprised that social science is a science as well. Your constraints are not my limitations in any area of my life. I have a little bit larger self-established cage than you have. Good Luck!

A great question, Robert. Opinion polls will probably answer this for the USA within a week or so. It is not unreasonable to be influenced by extreme events, since climate change believers such as Al Gore tend to emphasize these over the steady warming of the planet because they are more dramatic. Climate scientists, in contrast, have been reluctant to comment because single events, however extreme, do not show a trend. However, there are now well-established procedures for a probabilistic assignment of 'blame' for single events to global climate change. Unfortunately, these tend to be published months after the event when they have less impact on public opinion. In my experience, extreme events have most influence on scientists on the fringes of climate change biology, for whom they re-enforce a belief that climate change is real and important, without the trouble of reading all the technical literature. Hurricanes are an awkward example, however, since there is still genuine scientific disagreement on the effects of climate change. The global climate models operate on a scale that is too coarse for cyclones to arise purely mechanistically, so the models have to be tweaked to match reality, which is not good if you want to predict the future. Richard

Robert you might be surprised about what I did and do apart from science but I keep it separated.

Your question is on the frequency of hurricanes I do not see a sociological issue here, but meteorology and climatology

Harry

Dear Harry, I respect and acknowledge your opinion.

If you are directly affected by the above-mentioned hurricanes, one's opinion has been drastically changed (if one has survived).

Seeing the effects on the TV is not the same as being there.

Yes, it has alarmed me and all others that can potentially be in the path of a future hurricane.

We apparently know the major kinematic and thermodynamic factors affecting formation of strong hurricanes. The most commonly quoted causes include small wind shear in the troposphere and high "thermal potential" of the tropical Atlantic. We cannot explain, however, the causes of these causes and so on. The situation is thus reminiscent of playing a chess game and analyzing only one or, maximum, two moves ahead (without the intuition and the positional memory of a Grand Master).

The current hurricane season indicated once again that in the nonlinear complex atmospheric system there is always an anomalous weather, in fact, lack of the extremes and the intermittency should be considered as an anomaly.

Perhaps the analogy between our attempts to explain the connection between climate change and extreme events on the one side and playing the chess game on the other should be explored further. If this is the case, we will definitely add some new elements to our traditional climate models. The hurricane season of 2017 shows clearly that initial-boundary value problem in the sense of the Cauchy-Kovalevkaya theorem is not sufficient to answer all the questions when considering time periods in excess of ten days or more.

Dear Robert;

I am agree with Harry;  The recent Hurricane events could strongly support climate change theory. 

I want ask you to read my answer at this link:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_really_experiencing_climate_change 

We expect climate change to change the extremes.

This link also may help you, especially Weather and Climate Extremes.

https://www.wcrp-climate.org/grand-challenges/grand-challenges-overview 

https://www.wcrp-climate.org/grand-challenges/gc-extreme-events

Hope it helps.

In recent years, there have been more and more weather anomalies, including hurricanes, fires, floods, etc. in climatic zones where they have rarely occurred before. These weather anomalies are increasingly associated with the process of global warming on the Earth.

Many research centers indicate a close correlation between the scale of greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 and the rate of rise of the average temperature on the planet Earth.

More and more research centers operating in different countries and investigating climate change state that the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth is already a fact. As a result, the risk of increasingly frequent and increasingly dramatic climate disasters is increasing. Man has less and less time to counteract these negative processes.

It is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations.

I invite you to the discussion.