Curbing C*****e C****e
Jan 2, 2018 13:40:59 #
Anyone see any reason for critical review of these articles?
Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it, according to a new study that for the first time builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.
Drawing from both social psychology and climate science, the new model investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to extreme climate events and affect global temperature change.
The model accounts for the dynamic feedbacks that occur naturally in the Earth's climate system
Temperature projections determine the likelihood of e*****e w*****r events, which in turn influence human behavior. Human behavioral changes, such as installing solar panels or investing in public t***sportation, alter greenhouse gas emissions, which change the global temperature and thus the frequency of extreme events, leading to new behaviors, and the cycle continues.
Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts global temperature change ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.
Due to the complexity of physical processes, climate models have uncertainties in global temperature prediction.
The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.
The model found that long-term, less easily reversed behavioral changes, such as insulating homes or purchasing hybrid cars, had by far the most impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and thus reducing c*****e c****e, versus more short-term adjustments, such as adjusting thermostats or driving fewer miles.
The results, published today in the journal Nature C*****e C****e, demonstrate the importance of factoring human behavior into models of c*****e c****e.
"A better understanding of the human perception of risk from c*****e c****e and the behavioral responses are key to curbing future c*****e c****e," said lead author Brian Beckage, a professor of plant biology and computer science at the University of Vermont.
The paper was a result of combined efforts of the joint Working Group on Human Risk Perception and C*****e C****e at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) at the University of Maryland. Both institutes are supported by the National Science Foundation. The Working Group of about a dozen scientists from a variety of disciplines, including biology, psychology, geography, and mathematics, has been researching the questions surrounding human risk perception and c*****e c****e since 2013.
"It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for societies to make sufficient changes to reduce future temperatures. When we started this project, we simply wanted to address the question as to whether there was any rational basis for 'hope' -- that is a rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future global temperatures," said NIMBioS Director Louis J. Gross, who co-authored the paper and co-organized the Working Group.
"Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses," Gross said. "The key result from this paper is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope."
That basis for hope can be the foundation which communities can build on in adopting policies to reduce emissions, said co-author Katherine Lacasse, an assistant professor of psychology at Rhode Island College.
"We may notice more hurricanes and heat waves than usual and become concerned about c*****e c****e, but we don't always know the best ways to reduce our emissions," Lacasse said. "Programs or policies that help reduce the cost and difficulty of making long-term changes or that bring in whole communities to make long-term changes together can help support people to take big steps that have a meaningful impact on the climate."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180101144749.htm
Italics and bold print mine.
Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it, according to a new study that for the first time builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.
Drawing from both social psychology and climate science, the new model investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to extreme climate events and affect global temperature change.
The model accounts for the dynamic feedbacks that occur naturally in the Earth's climate system
Temperature projections determine the likelihood of e*****e w*****r events, which in turn influence human behavior. Human behavioral changes, such as installing solar panels or investing in public t***sportation, alter greenhouse gas emissions, which change the global temperature and thus the frequency of extreme events, leading to new behaviors, and the cycle continues.
Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts global temperature change ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.
Due to the complexity of physical processes, climate models have uncertainties in global temperature prediction.
The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.
The model found that long-term, less easily reversed behavioral changes, such as insulating homes or purchasing hybrid cars, had by far the most impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and thus reducing c*****e c****e, versus more short-term adjustments, such as adjusting thermostats or driving fewer miles.
The results, published today in the journal Nature C*****e C****e, demonstrate the importance of factoring human behavior into models of c*****e c****e.
"A better understanding of the human perception of risk from c*****e c****e and the behavioral responses are key to curbing future c*****e c****e," said lead author Brian Beckage, a professor of plant biology and computer science at the University of Vermont.
The paper was a result of combined efforts of the joint Working Group on Human Risk Perception and C*****e C****e at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) at the University of Maryland. Both institutes are supported by the National Science Foundation. The Working Group of about a dozen scientists from a variety of disciplines, including biology, psychology, geography, and mathematics, has been researching the questions surrounding human risk perception and c*****e c****e since 2013.
"It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for societies to make sufficient changes to reduce future temperatures. When we started this project, we simply wanted to address the question as to whether there was any rational basis for 'hope' -- that is a rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future global temperatures," said NIMBioS Director Louis J. Gross, who co-authored the paper and co-organized the Working Group.
"Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses," Gross said. "The key result from this paper is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope."
That basis for hope can be the foundation which communities can build on in adopting policies to reduce emissions, said co-author Katherine Lacasse, an assistant professor of psychology at Rhode Island College.
"We may notice more hurricanes and heat waves than usual and become concerned about c*****e c****e, but we don't always know the best ways to reduce our emissions," Lacasse said. "Programs or policies that help reduce the cost and difficulty of making long-term changes or that bring in whole communities to make long-term changes together can help support people to take big steps that have a meaningful impact on the climate."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180101144749.htm
Italics and bold print mine.
Jan 2, 2018 15:03:28 #
BigMike wrote:
Anyone see any reason for critical review of these... (show quote)
I'm not sure a 'critical' review of quasi-scientific babble is even possible. From a long string of pseudo-intellectual words the main gist seems to be-we can't depend on people to do what we tell them to do about 'c*****e c****e', even when we propagandize and guilt them, so coercion or force may be necessary, and hopefully that will be accepted by enough useful i***ts for us to get away with it
Jan 2, 2018 15:08:53 #
Ricktloml wrote:
I'm not sure a 'critical' review of quasi-scientific babble is even possible. From a long string of pseudo-intellectual words the main gist seems to be-we can't depend on people to do what we tell them to do about 'c*****e c****e', even when we propagandize and guilt them, so coercion or force may be necessary, and hopefully will that be accepted by enough useful i***ts for us to get away with it
Good points. I hope more folks sign on and make a few more.
Jan 3, 2018 23:54:55 #
Professor Howard
Don't these authors look at the real data? There is no real past data on extreme events to support the people who think they observe an increase in extreme events. It reminds me of growing up just north of the Arizona Strip and hearing the rancher talk about the atomic tests in Nevada causing weather changes. We should look at the data and avoid the propaganda.
Don't these authors look at the real data? There is no real past data on extreme events to support the people who think they observe an increase in extreme events. It reminds me of growing up just north of the Arizona Strip and hearing the rancher talk about the atomic tests in Nevada causing weather changes. We should look at the data and avoid the propaganda.
Jan 4, 2018 00:17:56 #
M. Howard wrote:
Professor Howard
Don't these authors look at the real data? There is no real past data on extreme events to support the people who think they observe an increase in extreme events. It reminds me of growing up just north of the Arizona Strip and hearing the rancher talk about the atomic tests in Nevada causing weather changes. We should look at the data and avoid the propaganda.
Don't these authors look at the real data? There is no real past data on extreme events to support the people who think they observe an increase in extreme events. It reminds me of growing up just north of the Arizona Strip and hearing the rancher talk about the atomic tests in Nevada causing weather changes. We should look at the data and avoid the propaganda.
We've been keeping records a little over 150 years and think we know something?
That article is almost as specific as a horoscope and trust me...the know-nothings would never take the time to read it...they're happy being told what to think and it's smart sounding enough for the indoctrinated to ignore every qualifier and uncertainty. It almost reminds me of "psychohistory" from the Foundation Trilogy.
They would never understand the simple mathematics of projections and how that relates to "climate models". Like laying pipe, a minor mistake turns into a major one the further out one goes.
The article even mentions how complex climate computing is...alliteration completely unintentional.
They don't even know how complex it is and their models are no better than this guess: since the Little Ice Age we could have been in store for 800 years of warming no matter what if the ONLY thing one took into consideration is past climatic cycles...just sayin'.
Jan 4, 2018 00:22:28 #
Bottom line folks...look for qualifiers. No one can sound smarter saying "I don't know" than a scientist fishing for dough...rhyme unintentional.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.