[geo] Trajectory sensitivity of the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions - Krasting - GRL - Wiley
Poster's note : This will be of interest to those examining GGR trajectories, and the interplay between SRM and mitigation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059141/abstract?utm_content=buffer11d58utm_medium=socialutm_source=twitter.comutm_campaign=buffer Keywords: climate sensitivity;cumulative emissions;transient climate response;TCRE;oceanic heat uptake;carbon sink Abstract [1] The robustness of Transient Climate Response to cumulative Emissions (TCRE) is tested using an Earth System Model (GFDL-ESM2G) forced with 7 different constant rates of carbon emissions (2 GtC/yr to 25 GtC/yr), including low emission rates that have been largely unexplored in previous studies. We find the range of TCRE resulting from varying emission pathways to be 0.76 to 1.04 °C/TtC. This range, however, is small compared to the uncertainty resulting from varying model physics across the CMIP5 ensemble. TCRE has a complex relationship with emission rates; TCRE is largest for both low (2 GtC/yr) and high (25 GtC/yr) emissions and smallest for present-day emissions (5-10 GtC/yr). Unforced climate variability hinders precise estimates of TCRE for periods shorter than 50 years for emission rates near or smaller than present day values. Even if carbon emissions would stop, the prior emissions pathways will affect the future climate responses. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Physics Today artidcle
Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.
Hi Greg, The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp is against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with God, etc. Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid. But subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of geoengineering. Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is presented to them. I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of the common camps, will accept geoengineering. Only when this impasse is properly acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the scientific evidence that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also to cool the Arctic. Cheers, John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: This observation may bear repeating: To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will not estrange them from their communities. Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their communities. Greg -- *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering: http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me wondering what nonsense I believe. http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three- models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. (in press). Theoretical background Three models of risk perception The scholarly literature on risk perception and communication is dominated by two models. The first is the rational-weigher model, which posits that members of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be expected to process information about risk in a manner that promotes their expected utility (Starr 1969). The second is the irrational-weigher model, which asserts that ordinary members of the pubic lack the ability to reliably advance their expected utility because their assessment of risk information is constrained by cognitive biases and other manifestations of bounded rationality (Kahneman 2003; Sunstein 2005; Marx et al. 2007; Weber 2006).Neither of these models cogently explains public conflict over climate change--or a host of other putative societal risks, such as nuclear power, the vaccination of teenage girls for HPV, and the removal of restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public. Such disputes conspicuously feature partisan divisions over facts that admit of scientific investigation. Nothing in the rational-weigher model predicts that people with different values or opposing political commitments will draw radically different inferences from common information. Likewise, nothing in the irrational-weigher model suggests that people who
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.
My understanding is that many conservatives are rather fond of geoengineering as it allows the continuing BAU pathway (at least superficially). Further, as David Keith has pointed out, a degree of moral hazard is entirely rational. However, what's surprising is that a degree of negative or perverse moral hazard has been found in a couple of studies. IE that some people become more worried about AGW when CE is explained. This can potentially be rationalised by the shift in perception caused by realising CE is considered a serious option. I guess they'd prefer blue skies to SUVs, and facing that choice makes it more pressing. My own serious games work supported negative moral hazard, but had to be ditched due to methodology flaws. A On 4 Mar 2014 19:22, John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Greg, The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp is against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with God, etc. Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid. But subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of geoengineering. Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is presented to them. I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of the common camps, will accept geoengineering. Only when this impasse is properly acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the scientific evidence that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also to cool the Arctic. Cheers, John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: This observation may bear repeating: To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will not estrange them from their communities. Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their communities. Greg -- *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering: http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me wondering what nonsense I believe. http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three- models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. (in press). Theoretical background Three models of risk perception The scholarly literature on risk perception and communication is dominated by two models. The first is the rational-weigher model, which posits that members of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be expected to process information about risk in a manner that promotes their expected utility (Starr 1969). The second is the irrational-weigher model, which asserts that ordinary members of the pubic lack the ability to reliably advance their
Re: [geo] Alternative to Wind turbines as hurricane tamers?
The issue of energy distribution (getting the energy to shore) seems to be a key operational and financial consideration. Having both the profits from wind/wave/otec/solar energy conversion and MCB would help overcome the high cost of the gear while establishing the largest possible cooling footprint. If this storm mitigation grid were to use hydraulic lines as the energy distribution grid, those lines could be outfitted with forward osmosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_osmosisunits which would allow for shore deliver of both energy and freshwater. We need both. Best, Michael On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:07:09 PM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote: Why not (also) use beefed up hydrokinetic electricity generation to take advantage of (and to dissipate) the storm energy imparted to the ocean? Prof. Salter might want to weigh here. Both approaches would seem to benefit if there were cost effective ways of storing the large but relatively short term quantity of electricity produced, e.g. pumped water or pressurized air storage(?) Greg -- *From:* John Latham john.l...@manchester.ac.uk javascript: *To:* jaco...@stanford.edu javascript: jaco...@stanford.edujavascript:; Hawkins, Dave dhaw...@nrdc.org javascript:; Jim Fleming jfle...@colby.edu javascript:; Jim Fournier j...@planetwork.netjavascript:; Lee Buric l...@planetwork.net javascript: *Cc:* Geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2014 9:34 AM *Subject:* [geo] Alternative to Wind turbines as hurricane tamers? Hello All, The wind-turbine idea is an interesting one, and clearly should be studied further. However, we favour an approach, described in the attached, recently published paper on hurricane weakening via Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), in which MCB ocean-surface-waters cooling, in regions where hurricanes spawn, stifles the growth of some hurricanes, and inhibits the creation of others. [We prefer to weaken their early growth or render them stillborn] Best Wishes, John. [lat...@ucar.edu javascript:] John Latham Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 Email: lat...@ucar.edu javascript: or john.l...@manchester.ac.ukjavascript: Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [ geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] on behalf of Mark Z. Jacobson [ jaco...@stanford.edu javascript:] Sent: 28 February 2014 16:02 To: Hawkins, Dave; Jim Fleming Cc: Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Wind turbines as hurricane tamers? Dear all, the paper is located at http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WindHurricane/WindHurric.html The turbines would be installed primarily to generate electric power year around and would pay for themselves over time doing this. There is a cost analysis in the paper assuming 1-2 hurricanes striking a given area over 30 years. The cost benefit of the turbines per kWh averaged over this time is much smaller than the air pollution cost reduction benefit, which is why the primary purpose is to generate electricity/offset fossil fuels. Hurricane dampening would be a secondary free benefit, unlike sea walls, which cost $30 billion for one city but don't pay for themselves or reduce wind speed (only storm surge). Sincerely, Mark Jacobson On 2/28/14 7:07 AM, Hawkins, Dave wrote: True enough. Suggests that hurricane taming would be at best a secondary factor in size and location of offshore wind farms. One could do a probabilistic analysis and see if the hurricane taming potential had noticeable economic value. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Feb 28, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Jim Fleming jfle...@colby.edujavascript: mailto:jflem...@colby.edu javascript: wrote: This analysis assumes you know where upstream of a city actually is. See the attached map of Florida landfalling hurricane trajectories.tracks of hurricanes.jpg James Fleming On Sabbatical STS Program Colby College Web: http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleminghttp://web.colby.edu/jfleming Toxic Airs (March 2014) http://www.upress.pitt.edu/BookDetails.aspx?bookId=36392 On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Hawkins, Dave dhaw...@nrdc.orgjavascript: mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org javascript: wrote: Interesting analysis suggesting an action that is both a type of geo-engineering and emissions mitigation. Abstract of Nature Climate Change paper Hurricanes are causing increasing damage to many coastal regions worldwide. Offshore wind turbines can provide substantial clean electricity year-round, but can they also mitigate hurricane damage while avoiding damage to themselves? This study uses an advanced climate–weather
Re: [geo] Physics Today artidcle
Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy Spencer graph of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnider-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/ Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts paper in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later. David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Physics Today article
And then there is Holdren¹s rebuttal of Christy. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielk e-climate-drought/ Mike On 3/4/14 4:15 PM, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy Spencer graph of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnide r-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/ Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts paper in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later. David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5. 8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Physics Today article
OOPS‹wrong skeptic. But article is god in any case. Mike And then there is Holdren¹s rebuttal of Christy. See http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3349411/john-holdren-roger-pielk e-climate-drought/ Mike On 3/4/14 4:15 PM, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Bart Verheggen makes a pretty good case that the Christy Spencer graph of model vs observed results is misleading, for two reasons: it uses only 5-year running averages, and because of the way it re-baselines: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/john-christy-richard-mcnide r-roy-spencer-flat-earth-hot-spot-figure-baseline/ Their graph badly needs to be peer reviewed, as do other statements Christy has made in public -- such as pushing an Anthony Watts paper in Congress the day after it appeared on the Web, purporting to find problems in the US surface station records. Problems with it were immediately pointed on the Web, and the Watts et al paper still hasn't appeared in a journal about 1.7 years later. David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com On 3/4/2014 9:56 AM, euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Would anyone like to comment on this? It certainly deserves comment since right or wrong it appears in an authoritative journal. http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5. 8034?dm_i=1Y69,27QSN,E1MP2T,80LVA,1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci.
Buck up, John. Once the real hazards of rising sea level, failed crops, and acidified oceans materialize, the decision-makers just might yearn for some hazards of the moral kind. And you and I might still be around when that happens. Even then there is no guarantee that any countering action will be effective and safe unless we do some research to find out before the real need for hazard mitigation arises, which for some of us is right now. Keep up the good fight... Greg From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.commailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:21 AM To: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov Cc: dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com, dan.ka...@yale.edumailto:dan.ka...@yale.edu dan.ka...@yale.edumailto:dan.ka...@yale.edu, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.ukmailto:j...@cloudworld.co.uk Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. Hi Greg, The theory is that people tend to be polarised into two camps. One camp is against the idea that climate change can have anything to do with our greenhouse gas emissions; and therefore (subconsciously) this camp is against geoengineering because it would admit of a massive problem to be solved. The other camp is against geoengineering (subconsciously) because of the moral hazard - the idea that it's a get out of jail free for the people responsible for causing climate change in the first place. They will talk of geoengineering as a climate fix, that it is playing with God, etc. Kahan refers repeatedly to a 2012 study where it was shown that the moral hazard argument against geoengineering was scientifically invalid. But subconsciously the second camp may still have this deep-seated fear of geoengineering. Therefore I deduce, using his argument, that neither camp will accept geoengineering, whatever evidence of the need for geoengineering is presented to them. I think this is the crux of the matter: nobody, identified with either of the common camps, will accept geoengineering. Only when this impasse is properly acknowledged, will it be possible for people to accept the scientific evidence that geoengineering is needed, not only to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, but also to cool the Arctic. Cheers, John On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov wrote: This observation may bear repeating: To be effective, science communication must successfully negotiate both channels. That is, in addition to furnishing individuals with valid and pertinent information about how the world works, it must avail itself of the cues necessary to assure individuals that assenting to that information will not estrange them from their communities. Isn't this what good advertising does, and couldn't our community benefit from some cogent advice from Madison Ave, if we could afford it? Science and scientific reasoning alone apparently isn't enough, especially when there are (well funded) individuals who would cast such reasoning as a threat to their communities. Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of David Morrow [dmorr...@gmail.commailto:dmorr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:27 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. FYI, the lead author of that paper, Dan Kahan, posted two additional blog posts on culture, values, and geoengineering: http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/24/geoengineering-the-cultural-plasticity-of-climate-change-ris.html http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/26/geoengineering-the-science-communication-environment-the-cul.html On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:04:00 AM UTC-6, andrewjlockley wrote: Poster's note : This is just brilliant. At last an explanation of why believing nonsense is rational. Useful to reflect on how this paper replies to the origin and persistence of other belief systems, as well as climate change. Leaves me wondering what nonsense I believe. http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/2/23/three-models-of-risk-perception-their-significance-for-self.html Three models of risk perception their significance for self-government Dan Kahan Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2014 at 7:52AM From Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. (in press). Theoretical background Three models of risk perception The scholarly literature
