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.
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.
"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..
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.
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"