Science... or not science.
"They found that, at 7.2 degrees F (4 degrees C) above pre-industrial global temperatures, 34%of all Antarctic ice shelves (including 67%of the ice shelf area on the Antarctic Peninsula)"
Apparently science doesn't require full sentences, just wild premises that sound scary. Presumable they wanted to say "will melt" or will disappear, or something. But, when they can't even proof read before posting an "article" it comes off like social media noise. That paragraph just... wow, fire the editor.
And, where the F do they have evidence of a 4°C temperature rise?
What's your take on this kind of article?
https://www.space.com/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-as-earth-warms
🇳🇱
Yes, I did. That's kinda the point. I've been reading about how temperatures will climb in the coming decade... for, literally decades. I believed them over 20 years ago. Now, it's the boy who cried wolf, and Bill Gates wants to block out the sun when Vit-D deficiency is (*cough*cough*) killing people.
Yes, it's not a journal, it's not a paper, it's "news" article. And my point is, it's as suspect as ever of being bullshit. The deeper you dig, the more complex the atmosphere control factors get, and the more we realize that what we THING will bring about change has a natural buffering system we haven't calculated yet, and/or that there are much greater natural dangers to humanity than man made (like, why the fuck aren't we funding NEO research more?).
My point was (although now mute) to find out what Gene thought about such "stories" and the context he'd put them in, because, I'm curious about Gene, and honestly would love to interview him and learn what he knows, and how he thinks.
Wasn't intended to be a pro/anti global warming debate, nor a demonstration of scientific reporting. Anyway... So much for that.
Boy who cried wolf? Huh? 1) the temperatures did increase 2) they increased proportional to the CO2 we released very close to predictions.
Now what did happen, thankfully, is we slowed down our rate of dumping CO2 and other green house gases into the air. So the predictions based on "if we keep doing what we are doing" didnt come to pass, but that is exactly as expected. But the CO2 model has been spot on this whole time.
Its very easy to predict the amount the temperature will increase as a result of green house gas if we assume green house gas production remains unchanged.
The what we cant predict however is 1) how much we will reduce green house gases and avert the disaster 2) the average temperature for a specific year... but we dont need to in order to measure how much danger we are in.
"Its very easy to predict the amount the temperature will increase as a result of green house gas"
Disagree. Nothing is that easy...
"if we assume green house gas production remains unchanged."
Still, even with one condition set static, which could never actually be acomplished, there are still to many variables for anyone to claim the levels of certainty they (journalist) try to claim.
> Disagree. Nothing is that easy...
We have so much data showing the level of correlation (millions of years) and the two correlate so closely that yes, its quite easy to predict.
> Still, even with one condition set static, which could never actually be acomplished, there are still to many variables for anyone to claim the levels of certainty they (journalist) try to claim.
The point is journalists arent claiming what the future temperature will be. They are claiming what it would be if current patterns remain the same and only "on average".. this number comes from the science not from them and the science has shown to be right. We can and have easily measured the CO2 change over time and the temperature has changed to the extent predicted given the change in CO2. So all the evidence shows these predictions of how CO2 and other green house gases effect temperature is very accurately with fairly low error.
See the images attached to see just how tightly correlated CO2 and temperature is... there really isnt much doubt here.
"we have objective ways over measuring correlation and we know the order of scale to expect the noise at."
We do not have an objective measure capable of even knowing the typical noise in the system. Completely disagree.
The statistics do favor the existence of these theories. Yes. They do not provide "zero doubt" that we have fully modeled the system accurately to predict what is coming. And, thus far, a number of "predictions" have failed (albeit, because they predictions were journalistic hype, that over state the statistical significance of the data).
I do not disagree with the position that overall, it points to CO2 being a huge issue.
I disagree it's as statistically sound as "no doubt." It's more than likely, but it's at best, still around that 80% fit (just like that graph), even when you dig way, way, way deeper into that data.
lets be clear what we have zero doubt about...
1) We have zero doubt that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is higher than they have been in the last million years at least.
2) We have zero doubt that the rate at which we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is many thousand times faster than has ever occured over any significant period of time in all of history.
3) We have zero doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere will significantly increase overall temperatures and that contribution is predictable.
#3 can be shown not just by looking at historic correlation but you can literally just test it in lab.. fill a jar with CO2 and one with air, stick them under a heat lamp and the one with CO2 will get much much hotter. We know and can calculate how much hotter it will get and can apply that to the atmosphere and get results that agree with the historically measured correlation as well.
There is no doubt of these 3 points to anyone with half a clue.
1 and 2, ok. 3, not so much.
"CO2 in the atmosphere will significantly increase overall temperatures and that contribution is predictable."
First half, yes, will influence.
Second half, "is predictable." That's where I part ways, because the predictions of the past failed to memorialize and were explained away without sufficient .. Anyway.. .I disagree. (to be clear, I disagree about the certainty aspect, not the trends).
And, I guess we could just end there. Because, you can't prove the future based on isolated variables in a jar in a lab. Ecosystem is pretty complex. It's likely to affect central areas of continents, I believe that. But I'm just not seeing 321,003,271 cubic miles of something with a specific heat of 1kcal/(kg K) rise 7 degrees in my lifetime due to CO2 just yet... Possible, yes. Probable, maybe. Zero doubt, not even close.
Again bullshit... We predicted what the average global temperature rise would be given a rise in CO2 and the actual abserved temperatures not just were in the range of the predictions, they were smack dab in the middle of the prediction almost perfectly.
Attached is an image of the temperature rise and CO2 predictions made in 2000 predicting to 2020 and then the actual observed values. They were spot on.
You found one prediction. I've been watching them since the 70s. Your always bound to find one model that fits.
That was not the predictions of the 1960-1990s, nor the doom and gloom of today where we are saying 7 degrees, that started this whole thing.
If anything, that shows that the nonsense in the first article is super exaggerated, because how is that going to make a sharp vertical turn now, based on it's own model.
Half a degree in 20 years, that's what you are showing. 7 degrees in 80 years is what that original journalist artical stated (that's almost 1 degree ever 10 years). Sure, acceleration, but I don't see that kind of curve here.
Scientific journals of note, peer review, all the accreditation in the world, doesn't make these models match. You have just disproved the original "news story" premise to declare victory? WTF?
its not about finding a model that just happens to fit.. I showed you the **prevailing** model.. these models arent complex by any means, they are realtively simple and easy to compute, and there is very strong agreement among scientists. This was **the** model of the 2000s and it turned out to be right.
You are grasping at straws. In the 70s there also wasnt consensus yet on a model.
One having zero doubt is not a measure of the certainty of the reality of the situation, it's merely a measure of one's lack of imagination about the situation.
To some extent I agree. But there are certain things with so much overwhelming evidence zero doubt is perfectly fine. I have zero doubt the earth is not flat, I have zero doubt the sun is far away, I have zero doubt the stars are even farther away, and I have zero doubt over the 3 points I mentioned regarding climate change.
Some things are so overwhelmingly obvious given the body of evidence that having zero doubt is perfectly ok.
Just one possible counter example: there's a tiny but non-zero chance we're in a simulated universe, so the distance to the stars, and everything else in your list could possibly all be an illusion 🤷♀️
You're of course free to believe whatever you want, but we men of science should be clear-eyed about what is fact and what is faith.
"The first rule is to not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman
Actually there is a pretty decent chance of a simulated universe. But even if we are in one, doesn't change the fact that in this simulation the sun is far away and the stars are farther.
Now of course when i say things like "zero doubt" that doesnt mean that i can never under any circumstances change my mind. But you would need rather extraordinary evidence to convince me the world is flat, so it isnt something I doubt, but it is something that you are more than welcome to prove if you have such evidence.
It would indicate that CO2 is NOT directly tracking directly, the tail where CO2 spikes, ? what's the delay mechanism there preventing temperatures from taking the radical turn vertical that temp does? Clearly that's not on a 1:1 relationship. Any sort of regression should show that something better than 1:1 fits, and that the graph itself is proof something MORE is happening, and we should look at what that is.
Yes plants love CO2.. doesnt change a damn thing on several fronts.. 1) we see a clear rise (and it is dramatic) in atmospheric CO2 so clearly debunks the whole "plants will just consume more CO2" nonsense. 2) we are cutting down forrests at the same time we are dumping CO2 into the air. So what little hope we have of plants balancing out the equation isnt there.
read:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/14/delingpole-we-really-muffed-it-scientist-admits-error-in-hyped-global-warming-study/
more:
https://observer.com/2017/02/noaa-fake-global-warming-data-paris-agreement-climate-change/
some more:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/21/mit-doctorate-climate-scientist-slams-gw-claims-based-on-untrustworthy-falsified-data-no-scientific-value/
Global warming or as your child hero greta thunberg calls it, climate change is fake af.
"Yes plants love CO2.. doesn't change a damn thing on several fronts." Because, history shows, high CO2 levels don't cause dead parts of the earth to become living parts? Or... ? That doesn't matter, because biology won't "kick in" as fast as we cut down trees. Ok.. Yea, this is not science anymore, this is theory based on a human self important bias interpretation.
(PS, climate is changing, just, not as simple as this, at all, and not "destine" to burn us all alive 2 generations from now)
Because a few reasons.. 1) even if the whole world were covered with dense forest it wouldnt be close to enough and 2) because we wont just let tress take over cities
I dont think you realize the shear quantity of CO2 we are dumping into the air.. in the billions of years the earth has existed never has CO2 been injected into the air at anywhere close to the rate it currently is. We are talking on the order of thousands of times more than even some of the biggest historic events.
"why would you even think there should be a 1:1 fit."
I don't. But I also see, clearly in that data, it should be fitted with a different mathematical model. And every projected model to curve fit that I can run through in my mind to fit it, makes it not line up as a "causation" but more a "correlation" and points to a far more complex model. Meaning, the CO2 model, based on that graph alone, seems to be bullshit, but was offered as proof.
you are making no sense.. when a factor shows extremely high correlation to temperature over the course of all of recorded history, and then again seperately over millions of years showing the same correlation.. yes, it confirms it is the primary cause of climate change.. how in the world do you not understand that..
Natural systems all have buffers. You ever hear any "science" about how hurricanes and global warming relate? Did they ever bother to tell you, the "energy" (heat) that causes them isn't the ONLY thing happening? Ever? What do you think natures doing when it is creating them, just dying away under the power of man, or maybe, just maybe, using one of the more obviously observable mechanisms to stabilize a system.
There is WAY more to it. Always is. And to say it's just CO2, and only look at CO2, eliminate CO2... Just does the same thing the paywall and bad journalism does. Dumbs down society, makes them look for easy answers from people that call themself "Dr." or are a celeb or politician.
The mechanisms are complex, just admit it's more than CO2. Fucking ozone matters, fucking cloud cover matters, the fact we have massive H2O reserves matters. The fact that to much wind power generator shit is changing the weather patterns matters. CO2 isn't "the answer"
No one said its "just" CO2 .. of course there are other mechanisms that will effect climate. The point is CO2 very obviously is the majority driving force.
The whole climate change deal has been proven 1000 different ways, the evidence is overwhelming and shown to be true in so many different ways you'd be a fool not to understand the concern. The problem is most people are scientists and will never understand things well enough to know that, and think they know better...
There is 0 doubt to anyone with half a brain that human caused climate change is real, its harmful, and its concerning, not to mention the major driving force raising global temperatures.
You want to not beleive it, I have neither the time nor energy to debunk it for you. Natural buffers are all well and good when there are natural and reasonable levels of CO2 change. But we are talking about rates of CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere many orders of magnitude greater than anything that has happened in the history of the earth. Those natural "buffers" quickly break down when they are faced with very unnatural rates of change.
Believe what you want, I'm not the idiot police.
There is if you understand just a little bit of physics of gas solubility.
First of all – at the observed conditions and mass of oceans and of atmosphere, majority of CO₂ is not in the atmosphere, but dissolved in oceans. (In fact, oceans are promptly dissolving about a quarter of extra CO₂ that is emitted from human activity; and they would dissolve more if CO₂ release slowed down.) It's estimated that oceans store 39000Gt of carbon — compared to only 750Gt atmospheric CO₂, for a factor of slightly over 50.
Now, what happens to CO₂ if you were to heat up the oceans a bit? Before accelerated CO₂ emissions oceans and atmosphere were in a steady state equilibrium. Solubility of gases decreases with temperature – their vapour pressure rises and the molecules have greater propensity to leave the liquid phase into the gaseous phase. So, during the steady state equilibrium, an increase in ocean temperature would mean release of CO₂ into the atmosphere (and note that oceans are an enormous reservoir of CO₂), and vice versa – a decrease in ocean temperature means more atmospheric CO₂ is absorbed by oceans.
So, before human activity started releasing large amounts of CO₂ that was previously geologically bound in "fossil fuels": any correlation between CO₂ levels and temperature is fully coupled to this equilibrium between the atmosphere and the oceans. The correlation is fully accounted by changes in temperature. CO₂ didn't just arise out of nowhere or disappear into nothing. So, it's more reasonable to say that the correlation used to be the other way: higher temperatures caused higher CO₂ levels historically.
Now, due to fast release of CO₂, the atmosphere and the oceans are no longer in an equilibrium. (And, as mentioned earlier, oceans are still absorbing a decent part of released CO₂, the process simply isn't fast enough – though this does have certain harmful effects on the ocean ecosystem, as CO₂ is mildly acidic.) Since the current rise in CO₂ is not caused by a disruption in this equilibrium, it is now decoupled from the correlation, and you can't use the past correlation to draw conclusions!
So, what is causing alarming increase in polar temperatures (much faster than that observed on average), and melting glaciers? Simple: soot. Glaciers normally reflect almost all sunlight – when they get dirty, suddenly they start absorbing much more heat. It's no wonder that the most alarmingly receding glaciers are in the Himalayas – right next to India which still practices burning the fields after each harvest.
Cough cough
Any statistics that affect huge money making things like climate change are likely manipulated, if not flat out lies.
“Numbers don’t lie.” True. But “people” can lie with numbers. “How To Lie With Statistics” is a short read that has been around for generations, written by Darrell Huff, with poignant illustrations by Irving Geis. Indeed, even Bill Gates, Atlantic magazine, and The New York Times have all praised the simple-yet-profound truthful wisdom it contains.”
And, for that matter, politics was very involved with funding. If anyone dare not preface the grant proposals with "global warming is real" and then define the experiment (at least in the 1990s when was in academia).
Further, -if- we believe that those that have the most money and data access in the world (this is an old argument, I'm sure you know how to debunk this)... Then, why are the largest financial institutions and insurance companies not worried about structures built within a couple meters of sea level, the south-east of the USA, etc... If the loans are within the time frame of risk, wouldn't you expect risk analysts to have calculated that in to our worldwide financial structure?
The science is very capable of accurate measurements, both today, and to a large extent for thousands of years with core samples.
For years, they insisted "global warming." But, in the 1970's Toro wanted our family to buy a new snow blower for the coming Ice Age that was going to happen in our lifetime, science was proving it.
The planet has a lot more buffers built in that we calculate for, and the predictions we have made don't usually pan out when it comes to climate. Oh, and BTW, who says the government can't control the weather, that's fucking proven fact. You know what happens when you detonate a nuke underwater in the path of a hurricane? We can change the weather, and thinking we haven't been fucking around with it extensively for decades is naive.
My point was, the media hype always picks the radical data points to claim trends, and historically, we see, what the media reports, is often the data point outliers, to sell ad space. IMHO, this article is clearly the ladder.
Sure, I very often argue points I don't believe, just to see where it goes, since we've derailed this, I'll be all "go there" and take the bait...
https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf
Discredited by... ? (and yes, there is an answer)