4 ms·

Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, recently wrote a similar blog post about climate alarmism: https://cliffmass.blog

Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, recently wrote a similar blog post about climate alarmism: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-existential-threat.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-exi... > Global warming is a real issue and we are going to slowly warm our planet, resulting in substantial impacts (like less snowpack in the Cascades, increased river flooding in November, drier conditions in the subtropics, loss of Arctic sea ice). But the world will be a much richer place in 2100 and mankind will find ways to adapt to many of the changes. And there is a good chance we will develop the technologies to reverse the increasing trend in greenhouse gases and eventually bring CO2 concentrations down to previous levels. > Global warming does not offer an existential threat to mankind, and politicians and decision makers only undermine their credibility and make effective action less likely by their hype and exaggeration. And their unfounded claims of future catastrophe prevents broad national consensus and hurts vulnerable people who are made anxious and fearful. And just as bad, all this end of the world talk results in folks turning away from the issue, both out of fear and from intuition that a lot of hype is going on. He also wrote a VERY disturbing post about how the university has tried to censor him and retaliate against him because he would not kowtow to the pressures of student and faculty activists, who are polluting universities with their ideological fervor. I highly recommend that anyone interested in protecting scholarly attitudes, academic rigor, and neutrality give this a read: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-washington-should-not.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...

WhompingWindows 7y ago
Someone who calls it global warming is a bit behind the times, and that's typically how the GOP describes it. Sure, if certain areas just got a little warmer, it'd be easy to adapt to. The problem is CLIMATE change, we rely on our climate for crops, fish, lack of natural disasters, lack of drought, lack of polar vortex, and on and on. Unfortunately, I could believe a university atmosphere promotes ideological fervor and suppresses neutrality in this cancel-culture, overly PC society. But we really do need to stop using the term "global warming" in a serious way, this is bad science.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  Isn't global warming exactly what's happening though? The average surface temperature of the Earth is rising. Yes it manifests in many different ways symptomatically but I think the planet-wide effect is ultimately a warming. I guess I see both as being valid terms rather than one being invalid.
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    Yes, it's happening, though surface temperature is not as relevant as overall temperature (including oceans), because oceans absorb a LOT of heat and are rising in temp faster than the land. In any case, climate change is the better term, it's more generalizable to flooding, hurricanes, polar vortex, ecosystem collapse, coral bleaching, etc. If you use the term global warming, it conveys much less of how broadly the upcoming changes will be seen.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Isn’t climate CHANGE saying “well, we don’t understand it well enough to specifically say what it’s going to do”? Seems like if we are making claims and enacting tax policy right now, we should at least be able to predict it’ll warm or cool. No? If the concern is sea levels rising, is that not warming?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    Climate change communicates different areas will be affected differently. For instance, the arctic warms incredibly fast, due to melting ice, reduced albedo, and disrupted polar vortex. In contrast, the USA is not warming nearly as fast as the arctic, but some areas are much more flood prone, hurricane prone, or prone to extreme weather (high highs in AZ, CA, FL, low lows in upper midwest (due to polar vortex aforementioned)). So, global warming is technically true, the average heat content of the globe is rising over time...but it's an outdated, over simplistic term because "warming" does not tell us that each locality is going to face a different reality. It's also used by skeptics to say "well, there's snow, so clearly warming is a hoax" or "well, MN has record low temps, global warming is a hoax." Actually it isn't, but ignorant politicians and voters may think it's a hoax if they only look in their own zip code for warming, and not for climactic changes everywhere.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Someone who calls it global warming is a bit behind the times, and that's typically how the GOP describes it. Sure, if certain areas just got a little warmer, it'd be easy to adapt to. The problem is CLIMATE change, we rely on our climate for crops, fish, lack of natural disasters, lack of drought, lack of polar vortex, and on and on. Unfortunately, I could believe a university atmosphere promotes ideological fervor and suppresses neutrality in this cancel-culture, overly PC society. But we really do need to stop using the term "global warming" in a serious way, this is bad science.

throwawaysea 7y ago
Isn't global warming exactly what's happening though? The average surface temperature of the Earth is rising. Yes it manifests in many different ways symptomatically but I think the planet-wide effect is ultimately a warming. I guess I see both as being valid terms rather than one being invalid.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Yes, it's happening, though surface temperature is not as relevant as overall temperature (including oceans), because oceans absorb a LOT of heat and are rising in temp faster than the land. In any case, climate change is the better term, it's more generalizable to flooding, hurricanes, polar vortex, ecosystem collapse, coral bleaching, etc. If you use the term global warming, it conveys much less of how broadly the upcoming changes will be seen.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Isn’t climate CHANGE saying “well, we don’t understand it well enough to specifically say what it’s going to do”? Seems like if we are making claims and enacting tax policy right now, we should at least be able to predict it’ll warm or cool. No? If the concern is sea levels rising, is that not warming?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Climate change communicates different areas will be affected differently. For instance, the arctic warms incredibly fast, due to melting ice, reduced albedo, and disrupted polar vortex. In contrast, the USA is not warming nearly as fast as the arctic, but some areas are much more flood prone, hurricane prone, or prone to extreme weather (high highs in AZ, CA, FL, low lows in upper midwest (due to polar vortex aforementioned)). So, global warming is technically true, the average heat content of the globe is rising over time...but it's an outdated, over simplistic term because "warming" does not tell us that each locality is going to face a different reality. It's also used by skeptics to say "well, there's snow, so clearly warming is a hoax" or "well, MN has record low temps, global warming is a hoax." Actually it isn't, but ignorant politicians and voters may think it's a hoax if they only look in their own zip code for warming, and not for climactic changes everywhere.