2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Banana Republic 1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just some more areal stats for the alarmists; annual Arctic maximum and minimum sea ice area changes in the satellite era, as a percentage of the total surface area of the globe. Just to put things in context.

March Maxima:
1980: ~3.2% of total global area
2020: ~2.7%

September Minima:
1980: ~1.5%
2020: ~0.8%

Point being, we're talking fractions of fractions

We’re in July! Plucking random figures is your area of expertise I suppose.

Billcarson

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just some more areal stats for the alarmists; annual Arctic maximum and minimum sea ice area changes in the satellite era, as a percentage of the total surface area of the globe. Just to put things in context.

March Maxima:
1980: ~3.2% of total global area
2020: ~2.7%

September Minima:
1980: ~1.5%
2020: ~0.8%

Point being, we're talking fractions of fractions

Fractions of fractions?
Bs. For the minimum does that not show the sea ice is around half extent of what it used to be? Of course using total global area it is trying to lessen the look of it .
It is also more then just extent, the thickness of the sea ice has decreased also.

Gaoth Laidir

Billcarson wrote: »

Fractions of fractions?
Bs. For the minimum does that not show the sea ice is around half extent of what it used to be? Of course using total global area it is trying to lessen the look of it .
It is also more then just extent, the thickness of the sea ice has decreased also.

My point was linked to the common misconception that the Arctic makes up a much larger area than it is. People love to use maps like the one below instead of showing the areas in their actual proportions. I would guess that 95% of the general public will get a false impression from it.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, and it's a completely tragic event, but the way you worded it read that the town hit 50 degrees and just burst into flames, like spontaneous combustion. It seems there is a more plausible (and less dramatic) explanation, as highlighted by MT earlier.

The wildfire was described as explosive by the emergency responders. Look, I’m not saying the town spontaneously erupted into flame without a spark, but the flashpoint of many common fuels are at around the 50c, including diesel. (37c- 56c)

Higher temperatures and drought do more than just dry out vegetation, they make wildfires more explosive because all these vapors are just waiting for a single spark to set them off

The correlation between increasing temperature and increasing wildfire intensity is very robust

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

My point was linked to the common misconception that the Arctic makes up a much larger area than it is. People love to use maps like the one below instead of showing the areas in their actual proportions. I would guess that 95% of the general public will get a false impression from it.

It’s irrelevant that the Arctic makes up a small proportion of the surface area of the planet it has a hugely disproportionate effect on global energy distribution compared to another random plot of the same area

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just some more areal stats for the alarmists; annual Arctic maximum and minimum sea ice area changes in the satellite era, as a percentage of the total surface area of the globe. Just to put things in context.

March Maxima:
1980: ~3.2% of total global area
2020: ~2.7%

September Minima:
1980: ~1.5%
2020: ~0.8%

Point being, we're talking fractions of fractions

Humans inhabit an area less than .01% of the available space in our planets atmosphere and oceans
If we removed all of the oxygen from the surface to 5000 metres, it would only involve a change to a fifth of .01% of the atmosphere by area, but it would kill practically every human and almost every land animal on the planet

Misleading statistics are fun!

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The wildfire was described as explosive by the emergency responders. Look, I’m not saying the town spontaneously erupted into flame without a spark, but the flashpoint of many common fuels are at around the 50c, including diesel. (37c- 56c)

Higher temperatures and drought do more than just dry out vegetation, they make wildfires more explosive because all these vapors are just waiting for a single spark to set them off

The correlation between increasing temperature and increasing wildfire intensity is very robust

This just shows how ridiculous some of your arguments are. A diesel tank anywhere, including Ireland, can heat up much hotter than 50 degrees purely by sitting in the sun, yet I don't see widespread explosions occurring. It's amazing how cars in Kuwait and other parts of the middle east aren't going up in flames every afternoon.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Humans inhabit an area less than .01% of the available space in our planets atmosphere and oceans
If we removed all of the oxygen from the surface to 5000 metres, it would only involve a change to a fifth of .01% of the atmosphere by area, but it would kill practically every human and almost every land animal on the planet

Misleading statistics are fun!

Right, that's an analogous argument indeed. :rolleyes:

By the way, speaking of misleading stats and statements, did you manage to find answers to the questions I asked you a few times in the past days, namely,

a) what has affected the swallows' migration to Ireland and
b) proof that Tony Heller is being paid by ExxonMobil or similar?

Oneiric 3

Any comment of that study regarding jet stream patterns I posted for you (twice now) Akrasia?

Tyrone212

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Just some more areal stats for the alarmists; annual Arctic maximum and minimum sea ice area changes in the satellite era, as a percentage of the total surface area of the globe. Just to put things in context.

March Maxima:
1980: ~3.2% of total global area
2020: ~2.7%

September Minima:
1980: ~1.5%
2020: ~0.8%

Point being, we're talking fractions of fractions

So that's almost a 20% reduction in sea ice for the maximum and almost a 50% reduction for the minimum. That's mad. I didn't know it was that much to be honest.

Less ice = more heat being absorbed as less ice to reflect back sun light. So what's left will melt quicker on that principle. Poor old Polar Bears.

Gaoth Laidir

Tyrone212 wrote: »

So that's almost a 20% reduction in sea ice for the maximum and almost a 50% reduction for the minimum. That's mad. I didn't know it was that much to be honest.

Less ice = more heat being absorbed as less ice to reflect back sun light. So what's left will melt quicker on that principle. Poor old Polar Bears.

To be more statistically accurate, rather than taking just two year's data, the decadal averages have reduced by

Maxima:
1979-1990: 16.00 M km².
2010-2020: 14.72 M km².
Decrease: 8.0%

Minima
1979-1990: 6.95 M km²
2010-2020: 4.42 M km²
Decrease: 36%

Nabber

Tyrone212 wrote: »

Poor old Polar Bears.

Their populations are increasing.

As with most apex predators the biggest threat on their life is starvation and members of their own species.
The pictures of polar bears starving and others floating on small pieces of ice has happened before humans walked the planet and will happen even if ice increases to +100% of 1980.

As the nature documentaries are a side arm of AGW, they also fail to inform their audience that much of the footage is shoot with captive animals. Including Polar Bears.
Again if there is no agenda, other than to save the planet, why do it in secrecy and misdirection of the general public?

Gaoth Laidir

Nabber wrote: »

Their populations are increasing.

As with most apex predators the biggest threat on their life is starvation and members of their own species.
The pictures of polar bears starving and others floating on small pieces of ice has happened before humans walked the planet and will happen even if ice increases to +100% of 1980.

As the nature documentaries are a side arm of AGW, they also fail to inform their audience that much of the footage is shoot with captive animals. Including Polar Bears.
Again if there is no agenda, other than to save the planet, why do it in secrecy and misdirection of the general public?

Nobody really has a clue how many polar bears there are now or have been in the past. The best estimate now is a very broad 22,000-31,000.

Here are just some of the comments from higher profile sources:

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

Status of the polar bear populations
Updated 2019 with data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Group

4 populations are in decline
2 populations are increasing
5 populations are stable
8 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear's range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

https://www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/tracking-polar-bears

No one knows for certain how many polar bears roam the Arctic. The best estimate is from 22,000 to 31,000 – but while we have good data on some ‘subpopulations’, we know very little about some others.

Nabber

Their pearl was based on perceived population reduction in multiple areas, which are in some cases are now double their projected numbers. The estimated decline in their numbers propelled them to the forefront as one of the first animals to be extinct due to AGW.

Granted, the population numbers have been startling. Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676.

Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals.

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

Banana Republic 1

Nabber wrote: »

Their populations are increasing.

As with most apex predators the biggest threat on their life is starvation and members of their own species.
The pictures of polar bears starving and others floating on small pieces of ice has happened before humans walked the planet and will happen even if ice increases to +100% of 1980.

As the nature documentaries are a side arm of AGW, they also fail to inform their audience that much of the footage is shoot with captive animals. Including Polar Bears.
Again if there is no agenda, other than to save the planet, why do it in secrecy and misdirection of the general public?

Stop your ****e talk, captive animals. Jesus H !

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s irrelevant that the Arctic makes up a small proportion of the surface area of the planet it has a hugely disproportionate effect on global energy distribution compared to another random plot of the same area

Going by this same logic, then the equatorial and subtropical regions also (considering their colossal hugeness) would have an even more disproportionately huge effect on global energy transfer.

Banana Republic 1

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Going by this same logic, then the equatorial and subtropical regions also (considering their colossal hugeness) would have an even more disproportionately huge effect on global energy transfer.

You have no clue

Banana Republic 1

https://theconversation.com/the-north-american-heatwave-shows-we-need-to-know-how-climate-change-will-change-our-weather-163802


https://theconversation.com/a-controversial-us-book-is-feeding-climate-denial-in-australia-its-central-claim-is-true-yet-irrelevant-162922

Oneiric 3

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You have no clue

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Going by this same logic, then the equatorial and subtropical regions also (considering their colossal hugeness) would have an even more disproportionately huge effect on global energy transfer.

This is the area of the Arctic superimposed on the Equator.

Gaoth Laidir

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Let me just refer to the two page pamphlet that is the book of flat earthism;

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

How does the theme tune go again,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Qa9dN3mI0

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Is it more plausible that they recorded the moon landings in a studio or that they actually went to the moon in your opinion ?

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

We’re in July! Plucking random figures is your area of expertise I suppose.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Stop your ****e talk, captive animals. Jesus H !

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You have no clue

Here are some crayons. Now go off and draw a picture and let the grown-ups talk.

Oneiric 3

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

This is the area of the Arctic superimposed on the Equator.

It is actually bigger than I thought it would be. Always had an idea that the Arctic region was about the same size (roughly) as the greater continental Europe region.

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is actually bigger than I thought it would be. Always had an idea that the Arctic region was about the same size (roughly) as the greater continental Europe region.

This is it in more context. There's a lot of equator...

Banana Republic 1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Here are some crayons. Now go off and draw a picture and let the grown-ups talk.

What’s is the context for this.

Gaoth Laidir

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

What’s is the context for this.

I ask myself the same thing after most of your posts here.

Banana Republic 1

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I ask myself the same thing after most of your posts here.

No context for your own rebuttals! Spoofing is a hard thing to give up when you’re in so deep I guess.

BettyS

Do you remember when there was the big campaign by the tobacco industry, dismissing the health concerns secondary to tobacco intake. They dismissed all the evidence as poor research design and biased (it was retrospective), knowing damn well that you could never get ethics approval for a double-blinded RCT for smokers vs non-smokers.

Bottom-line: remember when they told us that smoking was not harmful!

You have to look at the vested interests of big industry. Of course the petroleum industry is not going to tell us climate change is harmful.

The nature of the research question related to climate change is difficult to test, just like the smoking question was difficult. But in both cases, just look around. 50degrees in the summer! When I was a child 53C was the highest on record. And the soaring temperatures in the Artic!

Let common sense prevail rather than trying to resort to esoteric arguments about the research methodology!!!

BettyS

BettyS wrote: »

Do you remember when there was the big campaign by the tobacco industry, dismissing the health concerns secondary to tobacco intake. They dismissed all the evidence as poor research design and biased (it was retrospective), knowing damn well that you could never get ethics approval for a double-blinded RCT for smokers vs non-smokers.

Bottom-line: remember when they told us that smoking was not harmful!

You have to look at the vested interests of big industry. Of course the petroleum industry is not going to tell us climate change is harmful.

The nature of the research question related to climate change is difficult to test, just like the smoking question was difficult. But in both cases, just look around. 50degrees in the summer! When I was a child 53C was the highest on record. And the soaring temperatures in the Artic!

Let common sense prevail rather than trying to resort to esoteric arguments about the research methodology!!!

https://jech.bmj.com/content/55/8/588

Gaoth Laidir

BettyS wrote: »

Do you remember when there was the big campaign by the tobacco industry, dismissing the health concerns secondary to tobacco intake. They dismissed all the evidence as poor research design and biased (it was retrospective), knowing damn well that you could never get ethics approval for a double-blinded RCT for smokers vs non-smokers.

Bottom-line: remember when they told us that smoking was not harmful!

You have to look at the vested interests of big industry. Of course the petroleum industry is not going to tell us climate change is harmful.

The nature of the research question related to climate change is difficult to test, just like the smoking question was difficult. But in both cases, just look around. 50degrees in the summer! When I was a child 53C was the highest on record. And the soaring temperatures in the Artic!

Let common sense prevail rather than trying to resort to esoteric arguments about the research methodology!!!

What's the tobacco or oil industry got to do with discussing the science of climate change? Their vested interests don't affect the laws of physics or medicine. People are too quick to worry about WHO is saying something rather than WHAT they are saying. Akrasia's first port of call is invariably to discredit the author on the grounds that s/he is linked with the oil industry (without backing that up with evidence, of course). Rather than focusing on that, why not focus on discrediting the science of their comments? Science works, regardless of who is speaking.

Thelonious Monk

This whole discussion is a waste of time. Do either side really think you're going to convince the others what you're saying is right? Pointless discussing this with people who go with their own views of the situation rather than the general scientific consensus held by the vast majority.