July 24th, 2012 · Comments Off on 97% of Greenland is in thaw … unprecedented
This guest post from Fish Out of Water helps bring attention to the drastic impacts that a warming planet is having on ice in the northern hemisphere.
Greenland Ice Darkening
Dark surface of Greenland icecap in summer, photo by Jason Box, PhD.
The ends of the ice ages were triggered when earth’s wobble placed the Arctic in position to receive maximum summer time solar heating. The relatively small effects of the orbital variations were amplified by the melting of snow and ice which reflect sunlight back to space. Because rock and water take up heat from sunlight, ice loss adds heat to the environment, leading to more ice loss. Ultimately, this feedback loop led to the melting of large continental glaciers ten thousand feet thick. Today the same process is taking place at a rapid rate as the area of Arctic sea ice rapidly declines, the ice of Greenland darkens and the snows of Siberia melt weeks earlier in spring. Greenland June ice darkened rapidly in 10 years. image by Jason Box, PhD.
Ice sheet reflectivity this year has been the lowest since accurate records began in March, 2000. In this condition, the ice sheet will continue to absorb more solar energy in a self-reinforcing feedback loop that amplifies the effect of warming. It’s not a runaway loop, just an amplifier. A record setting melt season is likely if this pattern keeps up this year.Perhaps most remarkable about the 2012 pattern is how much darker the snow and ice is becoming, not only at the lowest elevations around the ice sheet periphery where melting is always most intense, but in the higher elevation net snow accumulation area. June monthly average reflectivity is below the 2000-2011 average across the southern-central area where surface elevations are above 2,000 m (6,561 feet). A purple area about 1/4 the distance north of the ice sheet southern tip at an elevation of 2,400 m (7,874 ft) has reflectivity 7% below the already declining 2000-2011 June (12 year) average.
Consistent with the low albedo anomaly at high elevations is the shift of the summer radiation balance from negative (cooling) to positive (heating) (Box et al. 2012). In the 12 years between 2000 and 2011 the high elevation ice sheet net radiation (sum of upward and downward solar and infrared radiation) approached positive values. What I expect we will see if these low albedo conditions persist is 100% surface melting over the ice sheet. This would be a first in observations. It may not happen this year, but the trajectory the ice sheet is on, along with amplified Arctic warming, will have the ice sheet responding by melting more and more.
The jet stream has gone north of Greenland this summer
Greenland’s 10,000 foot altitude is an obstacle to the atmospheric circulation. Usually the jet stream solves this problem by staying to the south of Greenland, keeping it cold at the summit all year round. This summer temperatures have risen above freezing at the summit station 10,000 feet above sea level. These temperatures are the highest ever measured at the summit. The atmospheric anomalies over Greenland are greater than the anomalies that caused record heat over the United States. The shocking dome of warm air over Greenland produced one bizarre cold anomaly as it forced the jet stream south on its east coast towards England. English climate change deniers are having a field day in the cold and wet as the rest of the northern hemisphere bakes and melts. The jet stream has contracted to a shocking degree from its normal extent over the past 90 days. This bizarre contracted circulation pattern is leading to record ice melt across the Arctic and unprecedented melting in Greenland.
Greenland’s ice sheet is now melting from top to bottom, shocking scientists
Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth
For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July. …snip NASA press release…
Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”
Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.
Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.
The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.
This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.
Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12. (ed note: I examined the temperature record on line. High temperatures were a degree above freezing on consecutive days at the summit.)
The record melting has caused unprecedented flooding on coastal rivers.
The heat may also be speeding up the break up of the Peterman glacier. Much above normal water temperatures, as much as 5 degrees Celsius above normal, are undermining Greenland’s outlet glaciers from below.
Peterman Glacier in northwest Greenland just spawned an ice island the size of 2 Manhattan Islands. In 2010 it also spawned a huge island of about the same size.
July 24th, 2012 · Comments Off on Time for a breakup …
Many have outlined reasons why Keystone XL pipeline is not a smart project for the United States. Opening the pipeline likely will lead to increased gasoline prices for many Americans. The pipeline, carrying the rather dangerous and difficult to clean up “Dilbit” oil, risks having leaks (despite industry promises that, well, such leaks would never, never, never happen … cross their fingers and laugh their way to the bank). There is that pesky little issue of how Tar Sands Oil will exacerbate climate chaos (which, of course, has nothing to do with extreme weather events, the drought devastating America’s 2012 crop yields, and …). In summary, when it comes to Keystone XL, there are plenty of reasons “Why not!”
And, these reasons add up to a basic conclusion to say to the pipeline promoters:
You’ll never get near my aquifer.
To understand that sentence’s full context, watch this video. You’ll be glad you did.
Increasingly, it seems, we need to look to ‘a-traditional media outlets’ like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert for (the most) truthful discussion about the nation’s challenges and opportunities. Rolling Stone, when it comes to catastrophic climate chaos, ranks among the nation’s best media outlets. As, for example, in the recent Bill McKibben powerful piece “Global Warming’s New Math”.
Consider the drought conditions across much of America, the withering corn crop, extreme extreme weather events across the globe, disappearing ice in the Arctic and Greenland, and other weather events showing the reality of climate change impacts on the global system. Consider those events, which are in line with what scientists have been predicted would occur with unchecked climate change, and should it surprise anyone that specialists in climate science are (extremely) worried looking to the future?
It is heartening to know that President Obama recognizes this. As per this post’s title, the President’s perspective is that we should be worried because the true experts are (beyond) worried:
those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem.
Increasingly, those farmers seeing their crops withering away, people losing homes and livelihoods to extreme wildfires (which, of course, are not solely due to climate change impacts), people flooded out of their homes, Washington-area residents going days without electricity due to the massive Derecho, and parents contemplating catastrophic chaos implications for their children’s future are joining those “who have looked at the science of climate change” and these people, too, “are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem.”
In that extensive Rolling Stone interview, President Obama talked extensively about climate change … as a political, and not just science, issue. Noting the radical difference between the political parties, with the Democratic Party’s acceptance of science underpinning a need for climate mitigation and the Republican Party’s anti-science syndrome suffering kowtowing to polluting industry interests, President Obama promised that climate science will be an issue in the 2012 campaign:
it’s been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.
Now, if you are not aware, that Rolling Stone interview is now several months old (that “six months” should have been a hint).
Since then, with much of the nation’s richest farmlands totally brown, most of the nation in drought conditions, heat record and after heat record after heat record falling (at a pace never seen before in recorded history), and so many extreme weather events occurring around the world that news media have a hard time keeping tracking, the President, most of the President’s cabinet, the Democratic National Committee, and the Obama-Biden presidential campaign have been strangely silent as to the linkages between climate change and extreme weather events — along with leaving Republican anti-science lunacies unchallenged and undiscussed.
Republican political operatives and politicians are likely quietly saying prayers of thanks for the absence of climate change science from the political debate. Americans have a high regard for scientists. Extreme weather events — not least of which extreme heat conditions — are fostering greater public attention to, awareness about, and concern over climate change. While Republican politicians’ science denial plays to the rabid extreme base and satisfies the fiscal interests of their largest political contributors, the majority of Americans respect scientists and the majority of Americans have, at least, a basic understanding that climate change is something meriting action such as investments (in highly popular across the citizenry) in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Anti-science attitudes might secure the support of a minority voters, the majority of voters respect science and scientists.
In April, President Obama stated that climate change and the need for action to address it would be part of the 2012 Presidential campaign. By failing to follow-up on the President’s , the Obama-Biden campaign is better serving Mitt “Etch-a-Sketch’ (on climate as on other issues) Romney than its interests and the interests of the American people.
To date, large cities from New York City to Los Angeles have stolen the headlines with major announcements about dramatic investments and worldwide partnerships that advance clean energy solutions and address greenhouse gas emissions. While these efforts are indeed critical to scaling the clean energy economy, small- and medium-sized jurisdictions also possess the power to nurture clean energy economic development. They can also often execute with a degree of speed and decisiveness that sometimes eludes larger cities.
While their efforts do not usually make headlines beyond their local news outlets, small- and medium-sized cities are stepping up with real results. It is in these living laboratories of innovation that we see the next generation of solutions for the clean energy economy in buildings, transportation, and waste management. These communities have the political leadership, an energized citizenry, receptive utilities, and capable business communities that are working together to build the new energy future from the ground up.
Real innovation is rare, because it is challenging and risky. But cities and towns not yet ready to take entrepreneurial leaps are nonetheless making important changes by using their bully pulpits, planning authorities, and purchasing power to galvanize their communities and move local markets. They are making slow and steady progress that will ultimately result in the full transformation of our built environment and transportation system away from fossil fuel dependency.
This study documents a range of real-world examples where American cities and other municipalities exploited the opportunities provided by ARRA (Stimulus Package) funding to foster long-lasting shifts toward Energy Smart practices — whether energy efficiency, better urban planning, or introduction of renewable energy.
At this time, a press release call is underway allowing practitioners to outline their programs its successes.
Perhaps my favorite moment in the call was a comment from Bellingham’s experience that shows that the IRS does have an impact on the nation’s perspective fostering energy :
“We don’t call them energy audits because we found that nobody likes to get an audit. That’s why we call them assessments
Bellingham has had some 785 residential energy “assessments” with 489 moving to projects based on these “assessments”. These average $479 per year in energy savings.
On Long Island, Babylon has conducted over 1300 BPI home energy audits (not yet with Bellingham’s word sensitivity). And, the program has financed about 870 retrofits with average energy savings of $1200 per year. E.g., this represents more than $1 million in reduced energy costs for Babylon residents. This is about 1.5% of Babylon’s total housing stock. That community is also requiring all new residential buildings to be Energy Star certified with LEED certification required for all commercial structures larger than 4000 square feet.
Comments Off on Pioneering Energy Smart futures in American municipalitiesTags:Energy · research
Today, a group of the nation’s leading experts on climate science sent a brief letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The message is simple: include climate change in the review of the Keystone XL pipeline. From that letter:
At the moment, your department is planning to consider the effects of the pipeline on “recreation,” “visual resources,” and “noise,” among other factors. Those are important—but omitting climate change from the considerations is neither wise nor credible. The vast volumes of carbon in the tar sands ensure that they will play an important role in whether or not climate change gets out of hand; understanding the role this largescale new pipeline will play in that process is clearly crucial.
Yes, evidently, at this time the Department of State is ‘fast and furious’ in its resolve to understand how the Keystone XL pipeline construction will impact the driving opportunities for off-road vehicle enthusiasts but is maintaining a stoically blind eye to any thoughtful consideration of how Keystone XL just might, in fact, help foster putting more carbon atoms into the atmosphere. This makes total sense to you, doesn’t it? After all, it isn’t as if anyone is linking the nation’s drought conditions, the severe weather events around the world, or other drastic risks to human activities — including the burning of fossil fuels — is it?
Reminiscent too much of those who highlight (truthfully) that humanity is responsible only a small percent fo the total carbon cycle (conveniently forgetting that it is humanity’s ‘small percentage’ that is tipping the balance to change such that we’ve seen a near 50 percent increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere with resultant and mounting environmental impacts), Tar Sands advocates like to emphasize that the resulting pollution will only be a small fraction of global CO2 emissions. Absolutely true — just as each individual coal-fired electricity plant is only a small fraction … However, remembering my elementary-school math, it does seem that ‘fractions’ eventually add up to whole numbers.
We are writing to ask that the State Department conduct, as part of its evaluation of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, a serious review of the effect of helping open Canada’s tar sands on the planet’s climate.
“I found a flaw in one of your statistical methods. Here’s a better way to do it, and here are my results using the new method.”
Denialism:
“I found a flaw in one of your statistical methods. Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
Legitimate scientific skepticism:
“I think one of your data sets is questionable. Here’s an analysis of how that data set impacts your overall result.”
Denialism:
“I think one of your data sets is questionable. Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
Legitimate scientific skepticism:
“I think your model fails to account for a factor that I believe is significant. Here’s a modified model that accounts for the factor you left out, and here are my results with the new model.”
Denialism:
“I think your model fails to account for a factor that I believe is significant. Therefore, you’re a liar liar pants on fire.”
July 9th, 2012 · Comments Off on “Welcome to the rest of our lives”
“Welcome to the rest of our lives“ is the latest video from someone who should be one of the world’s most important videographers, Peter Sinclair (or Greenman3610).
Peter has, for years now, focused his efforts on confronting global warming denialism and providing stark evidence of the truth that shows denialist arguments to be deceptive fraud. His “Climate Crock of the Week” have become must watching for those actually concerned about understanding the truth about fossil-foolish anti-science arguments.
“Welcome to the rest of our lives” does not present denialst arguments, doesn’t deal with Republican anti-science syndrome hatred of a livable environmental system, doesn’t dissect poor science, but provides an overview of the situation of where we are in terms of current weather conditions and changing climate … and links what we are seeing today to what will happen in the future.
There is nothing in this video (after the fold) that is news to me — nothing — yet it literally brought tears to my eyes in frustration over the utter inability (unwillingness) of our (local, national, international) political / economic / social systems to deal with climate change in anything approaching sane approaches and fear as to where we are heading.
These two passions are highly interlocked, not because baseball players will have to deal with ever hotter summers in the future nor the debate about whether global warming is contributing to increasing home runs but because these are two environments where there is a tremendous amount of data to examine and where statistics play an important role in our understanding. And, this is also an interesting arena due to how it can illuminate the extreme double-standards that exist not just within George Will’s brain and words but within the larger media world and even in our society.
As brought to my attention by Scarecrow, yesterday’s on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, George Will quickly explained the situation for sweating Americans (who had the electricity to be able to watch their televisions)
You asked us — how do we explain the heat? One word: summer. I grew up in central Illinois in a house without air conditioning. What is so unusual about this?
Now, come the winter, there will be a cold snap, lots of snow, and the same guys, like E.J., will start lecturing us. There’s a difference between the weather and the climate. I agree with that. We’re having some hot weather. Get over it.
We need to “get over it” because all that is going on is that “we’re having some hot weather”?
Don’t pay attention to your lying eyes as to breaking high temperature records (with so many more red dots than purple ones on the map) because this is just “one word: summer.”
Is there anything, in fact, “unusual about this”?
George grew up in central Illinois. It is not hard to check the temperature records, nowadays, for that area — for example, Champaign, Illinois. What do we find for, for example, the 2 July – 7 July period? Every single hot temperature record was broken this year there — and by over 10 degrees.
And, George asks “What is so unusual …”
So far in 2012, across this country, high temperature records are falling at a rate ten times higher than cold temperature records (and leading to the likelihood that it 2012’s summer will be hotter than the Dust Bowl years). Simply put, this has not occurred in George Will’s lifetime … and such a lopsided breaking of temperature records hasn’t occurred since such statistical analysis began over 100 years ago.
As for George’s growing up in central Illinois “without air conditioning”, I challenge George or anyone who supports Will’s willful deceit to provide an extended period of 95+ degree temperatures during his youth such that lack of air conditioning might actually have represented a threat to health.
Being from southern Illinois, I can tell George that he never went through a summer like this during his lifetime in central Illinois. I just had this same argument with my 80-year-old mother, who insisted that she remembers all the 4th of July’s that were over 100 degrees. Bull pucky! I went back over the temperature records and the highest temp on July 4th for the past 50 years was 97 degrees, and the average was 87!
This year it was 104.
“Bull pucky” indeed.
George Will’s selective memory about growing up reminds me of the parentreacting to the child talking about how difficult it is to walk through a three-foot snow bank. The 6-foot tall dad says, “this is nothing. When I was your age, I had to walk through snow up to my shoulder when I walked to school.” And, the father points his hand to his neck, two feet about the head of his 3 foot 6 inch tall son. Hmmm …
George’s selective memory is conducive to a quick data check and, well, found to be totally wanting.
The casual “oh its summer” provides a perfect example of the power of the will-fully deceiving debater. When Will made the comment, what journalist had Weather Underground’s data base for central Illinois memorized in their head to be able to call “Bull Pucky” on George?
Now, let’s link back to the start of this post … there is also baseball.
Interestingly, yesterday, George had a chance to deal with baseball in a near equivalent to the climate question.
Every baseball fan talks about the golden age of baseball, and it’s always when he was about 12 years old. I have news for you: This is the golden age.
George didn’t argue, as he did with climate, that there was ‘nothing special’ going on even though the contrast between ‘today’ and (for example) 1952 is far less stark and clear with baseball.
Just imagine a situation where home run records were falling virtually every day. And, there were a swath of players batting above .500. And, … Just imagine George Will stating “oh, this is nothing. When I was a kid and the professionals weren’t so pandered to, they were doing just the same thing. Nothing unusual here.” With an obviously falsifiable statement like that, George Will would be crucified by anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of the sport. And, in the face of repeated statements that were so easily proven false, Will’s audience — and ability to rake in money by being on ABC’s This Week and having a huge number of papers running his OPEDs — would falls off the cliff.
Yet, when it comes to climate science, this isn’t exactly George’s first time out the gate with such easily proven false statements. Time after time, those who actually pay attention to reality have had to call out “Bull Pucky” on George’s will-ful deceit. And, even with this, George remains accepted into ‘polite company’ despite his willingness (even passion) to confuse and deceive.
While baseball is without question a far more serious issue than climate change’s impacts on our economy, weather, health, national security, environment, and future prospects, the double standards remain rather shocking.
This brings to mind the fact that about 15 percent of Americans believe that the Apollo moon missions never occurred and were staged on movie sets in the desert. Would The Post, in reporting on the space program, seek to be fair and balanced by giving this 15 percent a voice equal to that of astronauts, astronomers and academic experts? Why, then, give prominent voice to global-warming deniers, who are similarly at odds with facts?
This morning, while reading the (near final editing) draft of another excellent peer-reviewed study from Stephen Lewandowsky, I was struck by how this line of questioning is so close to the truth.
Lewandowsky’s paper, just accepted for publication in Psychological Science, is based on a survey of >1000 people active in the blogging world — both climate science oriented and climate deniers and a range of people in between.
Why that blogger focus?
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science.
As for what the survey found, the title might just suggest why I’d see a link between the study and my LTE:
NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
From the abstract:
Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (~= .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.
Conspiracists are much more likely to reject the standards-based work from scientists and to reject the global scientific c
If being a hard-headed Ayn Rand libertarian aligns withbeing a climate denier and predicts embrace of tin-foil conspiracy theories, what makes one more likely to accept science?
Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
Thanks to Lewandowsky and his colleagues for another excellent piece of work that I look forward to reading in Psychological Science.
A bit unreasonable, considering that the Deseret dominates with the Mormons in Utah, but is there reason to believe that Etch-A-Sketch Mitt Romney and other Mormons would pay more attention to the Salt Lake Tribune than many of the nation’s other leading newspapers?
Reading that title, one has to wonder what the word “undeniable” truly means.
After all, at next month’s Republican National Convention, global warming denial will be an undeniably consistent element in the Republican elite’s anti-science syndrome. [Read more →]
Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth
such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.