Arguments
Skeptical Science New Research for Week #29, 2019
Posted on 23 July 2019 by SkS-Team
A relatively small haul of 42 articles.
The usual proportion of climate-related research domain output is notably reversed this week. Knock-on effects of climate change and how to deal with them dominated the raw feed of articles.
The physical science of climate change remains fascinating in itself as a matter of pure abstract curiosity. We could wish we only were witnessing a scientific phenomenon as a matter of pure science but with stakes at risk rising in scope and urgency, research focused on mitigation, adaptation and cultural impacts of climate change is burgeoning.
Unlike the study of cosmology or mantle convection, in this broad arena of science we're the central player and can write our script. And— let's not forget— we've previously successfully or at least forthrightly negotiated unintended outcomes of our prowess. For instance after a brief period of unalloyed delight the emergence of automobiles focused attention on outcomes of relatively simple physics producing complicated, painful and expensive effects. Momentum, inertia, 1/2MV2, human skulls, hard unforgiving objects and nasty, sad permutations of these things inexorably led to research on improvements. It's just so with the climate change we know we're causing— we've identified problems and now we figure out how to fix those problems. We get to shape our future for the better.
It's not complicated, not in principle. When with our clever brains we unleash forces unaddressed by our anatomy— or the normal functioning of the planet— we survive and thrive by further extension of our intelligence, not by pretending to be stupid and ignorant despite evidence to the contrary.
In short, research "ancillary" to the physical science of climate change is the smartest and arguably best side of our behavior on display, enlightened self-interest at work.
Another lesson to be drawn from our weekly research synopsis is more centrally germane to the mission of Skeptical Science. As inquiry extends from physical principles of climate change and workers in other domains inevitably assess conditions in the light of new information we find ever more confirmation of what the physical science of climate change tells us is to be expected. This week's biology section is rife with examples. The intellectual bankruptcy of denial of anthropogenic climate change is becoming ever more obvious as the acuity and breadth of our accountancy improves.
Physical science of anthropogenic climate change
Freshwater requirements of large-scale bioenergy plantations for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C
Estimating power plant CO 2 emission using OCO-2 XCO 2 and high resolution WRF-Chem simulations
Enhanced flood risk with 1.5 °C global warming in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basin
Turbulence Observations beneath Larsen C Ice Shelf, Antarctica
Extratropical Cyclone Clouds in the GFDL climate model: diagnosing biases and the associated causes
The relevance of mid-Holocene Arctic warming to the future
Research on how to cope with the anthropogenic climate mess we're making
Spatio-temporal trend in heat waves over India and its impact assessment on wheat crop
Evolution of Mediterranean extreme dry spells during the wet season under climate change
Assessing the degree of hydrologic stress due to climate change
Evaluating sea-level rise vulnerability assessments in the USA
The salience of climate change in farmer decision-making within smallholder semi-arid agroecosystems
Diversity in collaboration: Networks in urban climate change governance
Economic integration and CO2 emissions: evidence from emerging economies
Passive survivability of buildings under changing urban climates across eight US cities
Sustainable urban planning strategies for mitigating climate change in Saudi Arabia
Role of market agents in mitigating the climate change effects on food economy
Shocks, states, and societal corporatism: a shorter path to sustainability?
Global mitigation potential of carbon stored in harvested wood products
Responsibility for climate change adaptation
Largely underestimated carbon emission from land use and land cover change in the conterminous US
Biology and anthropogenic climate change
Post?industrial late summer warming recorded in tree?ring density in the eastern Tibetan Plateau
Climate change increases the potential for extreme wildfires
Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California
Nonlinear increases in extreme temperatures paradoxically dampen increases in extreme humid-heat
Arctic climate shifts drive rapid ecosystem responses across the West Greenland landscape
The previous edition of Skeptical Science new climate research may be found here.
Clicking on two links I wanted to read just returned the whole page. Neither opened.
Thank you for pointing that out, Synapsid. The links should now be working.
Hi !
I was recently made aware about a petition that supposedly 90 italian scientists are supposed to have signed and sent to the Italian government to make them reject the "hysterical" claims that are made about climate change, and that they question the science behind the anthropogenic impact on the climate:
http://www.opinione.it/cultura/2019/06/19/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-antropico-clima-inquinamento-uberto-crescenti-antonino-zichichi/?altTemplate=Stampa&fbclid=IwAR1YAoqulAKKXJTY-uzRfSEaX-G6NRpVOckp3nVE7iiTAgOQu8DMHGUxRnE
Here it is in the paper:
http://www.opinione.it/cultura/2019/06/19/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-antropico-clima-inquinamento-uberto-crescenti-antonino-zichichi/
And are mentioned in some other kind of press:
https://www.policymakermag.it/italia/clima-petizione-controcorrente-firmata-dagli-scienziati-italiani/
It would be interesting if you would take a look at it, as I have seen multiple blogs copy and paste it (often direct from google translate). If a large number of Italian scientists are questioning the science in IPCC's reports, it would be nice to understand why.
It would probably not be interesting at all to take a look at it and there is usually little variation as to why these types of operations are launched.
Meanwhile, there is this serious research coming up:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6451/369
It is Science Magazine, so under subscription, here is an excerpt from the abstract:
"The observed melt rates are up to two orders of magnitude greater than predicted by theory, challenging current simulations of ice loss from tidewater glaciers."
2 orders of magnitude. Will be interesting to see what further research shows...
Garb @2 ,
it would be good if you could check the paper in "opinione.it" [which does not sound much like a peer-reviewed scientific journal ~ where serious scientific is published!] and pull out for us, one or two or three scientifically-valid points of evidence negating the mainstream climate science the last 150 years or so.
A decade or two ago, a petition was raised by 31,000 American scientists [or at least, people having some sort of science degree] who asserted that the climate science was wrong. The petitioners ranged from "A" a biologist, to "Z" a wood engineer. Hardly any had specialist climate experience or did research in the climate field.
More importantly, the petitioners did never then, or up to today's date, produce any genuine evidence to back up their assertion. We can only think that their statement was an expression of crackpot ideation (sorry, I don't know the correct Italian translation of crackpot) or was an expression of their extremist political beliefs. [By definition, political beliefs must be extremist, if they disregard the scientific reality.]
It will be interesting to discover whether these 90 Italian scientists have anything to show. Unlikely, I would have thought ~ since there has been nothing published in the scientific literature to negate the "anthropogenic impact".
( Also interesting, that these 90 Italian scientists would be going against the Pope's own well-informed opinion on climate science . . . and against the Pope's council of senior scientists . . . and against all the leading august scientific bodies, worldwide. Perhaps they are 90 Galileos, who have been hiding themselves in a secret chamber for 30 years !!! ]