Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    307

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Snake_Baker

President of the 140K likes club
Apr 24, 2013
73,667
140,305
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
Sea level hasn't risen noticeably but I can see the potential problem. Northern polar melt is about where it was in the early 1940's. I remain skeptical about how much we can influence climate.
.........and rightly so.

That's not to outright dismiss some of the more balanced claims either, but the actual science is rife with errors and politically driven bias.
 

Ron The Bear

Come on Sydney, come on!
Jul 4, 2006
33,877
33,821
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
The “actual” science. Even for you this is embarrassing.
Climate science is hopelessly biased. It's like the WHO investigation into COVID's origins, after the team was handpicked from a select WHO subgroup and one of the investigators has already discarded the possibility of it originating at the Wuhan lab.

"The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. It’s simply not true. I’ve been working with that lab for 15 years. And the samples collected were collected by me and others in collaboration with our Chinese colleagues. They’re some of the best scientists in the world. There was no viral isolate in the lab. There was no cultured virus that’s anything related to SARS coronavirus 2. So it’s just not possible."

- Peter Daszak

At the same time as saying they are open to the possibility that it came from a country other than China... It will end up being an operation to restore China's reputation.

Worse than pseudoscience. Corrupted science.
 

mcnulty

Club Legend
Sep 18, 2019
2,215
3,314
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Of course, i'm referring to the models.

I assume a person of average intelligence would have figured that out.
The “actual“ science you were referring to is the models? When the models weren’t even mentioned as part of the discussion right now. It’s hilarious to me how much you intend on embarrassing yourself here.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcnulty

Club Legend
Sep 18, 2019
2,215
3,314
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Climate science is hopelessly biased. It's like the WHO investigation into COVID's origins, after the team was handpicked from a select WHO subgroup and one of the investigators has already discarded the possibility of it originating at the Wuhan lab.

"The idea that this virus escaped from a lab is just pure baloney. It’s simply not true. I’ve been working with that lab for 15 years. And the samples collected were collected by me and others in collaboration with our Chinese colleagues. They’re some of the best scientists in the world. There was no viral isolate in the lab. There was no cultured virus that’s anything related to SARS coronavirus 2. So it’s just not possible."

- Peter Daszak

At the same time as saying they are open to the possibility that it came from a country other than China... It will end up being an operation to restore China's reputation.

Worse than pseudoscience. Corrupted science.
Ooooooooookay....
 

Snake_Baker

President of the 140K likes club
Apr 24, 2013
73,667
140,305
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
The “actual“ science you were referring to is the models? When the models weren’t even mentioned as part of the discussion right now. It’s hilarious to me how much you intend on embarrassing yourself here.
I think I have stumbled across another stalker.

Here, take note:

 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
30,452
11,345
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Sea level hasn't risen noticeably but I can see the potential problem. Northern polar melt is about where it was in the early 1940's. I remain skeptical about how much we can influence climate.
That's incorrect, from 1939 to 1942 was one of the worst El Ninos, which recorded one of warmest ocean temperatures on record. But 2/3rds of the heating has occurred after 1975, this is not in dispute. Despite that it's still incorrect and have been discussed here before, you are getting your data from the same place Sankey gets his datas from


Also mentioned here


But in absolute terms, August 1938 extent was much greater (4 M km^2?) than today. So any attempt to conflate the two is...well...I can['t think of an adjective suitable for polite company.

Taking the Kinnard graphic - the 1930's "similar melt" is the second last dip on the graph, the first decline with modern observational data. This saw a return to "normal" after a peak that had seen the greatest extents in 500 years.


This is also confirmed here in the Arctic sea ice extent, in page 3

 
Last edited:

Ron The Bear

Come on Sydney, come on!
Jul 4, 2006
33,877
33,821
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
That's incorrect, from 1939 to 1942 was one of the worst El Ninos, which recorded one of warmest ocean temperatures on record. But 2/3rds of the heating has occurred after 1975, this is not in dispute. Despite that it's still incorrect and have been discussed here before, you are getting your data from the same place Sankey gets his datas from
...
Yeah data is sketchy from that period, but polar warming doesn't appear to be well understood. Climate modelling hasn't been able to reproduce the complete loss of Arctic sea ice during the last interglacial period.

Re the south pole:
Model simulations suggest that the recent warming could — theoretically — have happened without any influence from human-caused climate change at all. That said, the researchers do believe climate change has played some role in the recent trends.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-south-pole-warming-so-quickly-its-complicated/
“[We] conclude that there is little evidence of anthropogenic SAM-induced driving of the recent temperature trends … compelling evidence pointing to natural climate variability as a key contributor to the recent warming of West Antarctica and of the Peninsula“
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3230-4
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
30,452
11,345
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
Yeah data is sketchy from that period, but polar warming doesn't appear to be well understood. Climate modelling hasn't been able to reproduce the complete loss of Arctic sea ice during the last interglacial period.

Re the south pole:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-the-south-pole-warming-so-quickly-its-complicated/


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3230-4

So you have now gone from Arctic to Antarctic cause the data doesn't add up? you said the Norther polar melt was the same was 1940's, this is clearly false. You are argue this is due to natural causes etc etc, but your initial argument is clearly false.
 

Ron The Bear

Come on Sydney, come on!
Jul 4, 2006
33,877
33,821
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
So you have now gone from Arctic to Antarctic cause the data doesn't add up? you said the Norther polar melt was the same was 1940's, this is clearly false. You are argue this is due to natural causes etc etc, but your initial argument is clearly false.
I don't think it's "clearly false" at all. There is evidence pointing to extremely rapid glacier melt in that decade, but the data is not of high quality. You've pointed me to skepticalscience.com which is as rabidly pro-warming as any denier site is anti-.

Was just looking up the science on polar warming because the fact that it accounts for the lion's share of total warming is not often discussed, and it appears that it's because climate scientists cannot speak authoritatively on the subject.
 

Total Power

Hall of Famer
Aug 19, 2004
30,452
11,345
Grand Finals
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Rafael Nadal
I don't think it's "clearly false" at all. There is evidence pointing to extremely rapid glacier melt in that decade, but the data is not of high quality. You've pointed me to skepticalscience.com which is as rabidly pro-warming as any denier site is anti-.

Was just looking up the science on polar warming because the fact that it accounts for the lion's share of total warming is not often discussed.
The graph in skeptical science is taken from the 3rd link i sent you, which is a peer review scientific paper. The graph is based on observed satellite data, are you saying this graph is fake? I can provide NASA link if you want to, showing similar graphs, but you know better?

Also:



Scientists have been watching this feedback loop of warming and melting in the Arctic. To them, Arctic sea ice is a reliable indicator of a changing global climate. They pay the most attention in September when Arctic sea ice shrinks to its smallest extent each year. Measured by satellites since 1979, this minimum extent has been decreasing by as much as 13.7 percent per decade. Antarctic sea ice, on the other hand, has not been considered a climate change indicator. Whereas Arctic sea ice mostly sits in the middle of land-locked ocean—which is more sensitive to sunlight and warming air—Antarctic sea ice surrounds land and is constantly exposed to high winds and waves.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad