Confounding factors?
Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
11–20 of 132 posts
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#12"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.
I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks onl…
What I think is really weird is the high level of correlation between the presence of the beliefs that it's not happening and that it doesn't matter if it is. Those are two separate questions that are almost completely distinct in terms of what facts lead to them, and they overlap only at the point where they both recommend no action against climate change. Yet, it is very common for people who believe the first to end up believing the second after the first is shown not to be true. I think this might be because some cultural leaders start from "don't do anything" and work backwards, creating a correlation in their followers and indirect followers between all otherwise unrelated beliefs that imply nothing should be done.
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#13It's a great article. The real problem with evidence like this is that the "believer" must strive for 100% accuracy; that is really hard. The "skeptic" only needs to have one single piece of data turn out to be inaccurate, and then can doubt the entire thing; that is really easy. And, we can hold both things in our heads. I just went to the Newport Aquarium in Oregon. There is a terrific exhibit which shows a paleobo…
You're right, those of us reviewing evidence must strive for 100% accuracy. One of the issues with the cherry blossom data is that it's difficult to be 100% sure that we can accurately keep track of the Japanese calendar 1200+ years into the past.
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#14"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.
I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks onl…
I listen to experts then try to judge the experts credibility. This goes to listening to the sources of climate change believers and unbelievers. What sort of people believe climate change is real? What sort of people don't believe it?
Also, what evidence does each side present, and how credible is this evidence?
Just relating what I do.
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#15"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.
[deleted]
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#16"It's not projected data, it's actual data. It's not measured, it's observed." It's certainly elegant proof. If those climate change deniers could read they would be very upset.
I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks onl…
The question of the impact of climate change on humans seems to me a separate one from the observable reality of climate change and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which is a more tangible data question. It seems odd to describe yourself as a "denier" unless you mean you reject the actual science itself. And if you do, the question of whether it "matters" seems not at all important given that you reject it is happening at all. Or am I misunderstanding you? I guess I'm not sure what you're denying, observable reality or your perception of the projections made from that reality.
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a climate change denier. A lot of us keep our opinions to ourselves, mostly because we know we don’t know enough about it. Articles like these help change my mind. Well, partly. The question I keep coming to is “how do you know any of this matters, for a definition of ‘matter’ that includes widespread upheaval of human societies?” But at this point I go meh, not worth the risk. Point is, condescending remarks onl…
I'm not sure I understand. Why deny something that you claim not to know enough about?
Heh. Well, since you asked...
There's a distressing pattern: the idea that "man made climate change exists, therefore disaster."
The "disaster" part is the part I've never truly been able to convince myself of. I don't deny it -- you're right, it's more along the lines of agnosticism. But I think it's really easy to convince yourself of doom.
However, striving to be something resembling a scientist, I recognize that being ignorant is no defense. I haven't spent enough time researching the data, looking at the implications, and listening to the arguments. But every time I see a piece like this pop up, I feel this reflexive urge to question people and chase down the logic: Ok, climate change exists. How do you know we need to care?
I'm not saying we don't. I just wish people would admit "We don't really know, but it would be a good idea to take a few precautionary steps" rather than take the stance of "you're something close to Satan if you dare believe otherwise."
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#18It's a great article. The real problem with evidence like this is that the "believer" must strive for 100% accuracy; that is really hard. The "skeptic" only needs to have one single piece of data turn out to be inaccurate, and then can doubt the entire thing; that is really easy. And, we can hold both things in our heads. I just went to the Newport Aquarium in Oregon. There is a terrific exhibit which shows a paleobo…
Sure. My issue is that it doesn't help persuade those who agree that climate change is real and happening, but they won't admit that it's caused by humans. The line is "change is constant, the earth is always heating and cooling, there's nothing we can really do about it, you're crazy if you think we caused it and crazier if you think we can prevent it. Better to just adapt."
That apathy is extra frustrating for me.
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#19Devil's advocate response:
As I read it, the values here are the date that cherry blossom are first witnessed in the year. There's probably a bell-shaped distribution of when blossom appears on a given tree i.e. there will be a very small number of trees that bloom really early. If you have more people looking for it, then there's a greater chance that someone will spot a really exceptionally early tree. So an alternative explanation for the trend is just an increase in the Japanese population.
(Counter argument: when the population gets high enough that essentially all trees are witnessed, further population increases would have no further effect.)
Re: Japan's cherry blossom: as indisputable as climate change evidence gets
#20Sinking feeling sets in. I am assuming the modern economic systems will change once the significantly wealthy class start to loose real material wealth and opportunity. Unfortunately that will not be a good thing for billions of people over the next fifty years. I am also assuming really interesting technologies will make climate change livable for many, but no all and perhaps that's the way the game Earth is played.
Mitigation has always been the preferable solution because it doesn't suffer from the public goods problem. In other words, the people that incur the costs of mitigation directly enjoy the benefits it provides (such as building a sea wall). Prevention is just one giant worldwide geo-engineering problem with no mechanism to ensure long term global coordination.
More to your comment, I think you'll find that the wealthiest nations are the nations that are doing the most to aggressively reduce pollution while the poorest ones are emitting the most on a GDP basis. This effect is called the Kuznets Curve.