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.
Ok, the Prevailing model just proved that news story bullshit then. You have accurately corrected my bullshit statement.