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.
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.
"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.
