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

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117901325#Comment_117901325

If you mean that weather has become increasingly unstable then you have no argument with me, although the likes of Goath laidir will probably tell you that there is nothign at all strange about any of the weather within living memory

But if you are saying that there are swings between warmer and colder global average temperatures, then this is certainly not true, and you cannot say that temperatures are oscillating between hotter NH and Colder SH, and back to Colder NH and hotter NH. We're not observing a shifting in global heat content from place to place, which could be explained by natural variability. We are witnessing global temperatures increasing decade on decade and this is leading to a breakdown of climate systems and this will bring unusual conditions with it

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904744#Comment_117904744

No, I concede that those 2007 storms that caused The Hague to be abandoned were freakish enough. Apparently they were in line with what was predicted by the science. I'm scared for the future.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117901667#Comment_117901667

Again, the report was based on an extreme scenario

This is what they said in their assumptions.

A Climate Change Scenario For the Future The past examples of abrupt climate change suggest that it is prudent to consider an abrupt climate change scenario for the future as plausible, especially because some recent scientific findings suggest that we could be on the cusp of such an event. The future scenario that we have constructed is based on the 8,200 years before present event, which was much warmer and far briefer than the Younger Dryas, but more severe than the Little Ice Age. This scenario makes plausible assumptions about which parts of the globe are likely to be colder, drier, and windier. Although intensified research could help to refine the assumptions, there is no way to confirm the assumptions on the basis of present models. Rather than predicting how climate change will happen, our intent is to dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it. Where we describe concrete weather conditions and implications, our aim is to further the strategic conversation rather than to accurately forecast what is likely to happen with a high degree of certainty. Even the most sophisticated models cannot predict the details of how the climate change will unfold, which regions will be impacted in which ways, and how governments and society might respond. However, there appears to be general agreement in the scientific community that an extreme case like the one depicted below is not implausible. Many scientists would regard this scenario as extreme both in how soon it develops, how large, rapid and ubiquitous the climate changes are. But history tells us that sometimes the extreme cases do Abrupt Climate Change 8 occur, there is evidence that it might be and it is DOD’s job to consider such scenarios. Keep in mind that the duration of this event could be decades, centuries, or millennia and it could begin this year or many years in the future. In the climate change disruption scenario proposed here, we consider a period of gradual warming leading to 2010 and then outline the following ten years, when like in the 8,200 event, an abrupt change toward cooling in the pattern of weather conditions change is assumed to occur.

https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/An_Abrupt_Climate_Change_Scenario_and_Its_Impl.pdf

All of those bolded dates that you are using to scoff at the report are all based on a scenario where abrupt climate change happened rapidly in an unprepared world

Essentally, the point of the report is what would happen if there was a nuclear war tomorrow, how would that play out. And what you're doing is saying 'it's a stupid report because there wasn't a nuclear war tomorrow (october 2003)

The guardian reported that Bush was warned about the potential for catastrophe by his own defence agencies

Similar reports are regularly prepared on the plausible worst case scenario for things like a global pandemic happening, the reason is not to say 'A global pandemic will happen by x date, but A global pandemic could happen and we should make preparations to mitigate or prevent it from happening.

If covid hadn't happened last year you would probably be on here talking about the risk of a global pandemic being 'alarmist'. And yet look at the global disruption it has caused to economies and political systems world wide, and we were nowhere near the worst case scenario for a deadly viral pandemic.

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904829#Comment_117904829

Still blindly chipping away there, unable or unwilling to see how ridiculous it is.

Would you have an actual IPCC report that painted a scenario anything close to that described or can you link some of the "recent scientific findings" that "suggest that we could be on the cusp of such an event?

They say it's plausible because

... history tells us that sometimes the extreme cases do occur.

Hmmm, are they saying that there's evidence that such events occurred in the past? Bit of an own-goal there if that's the case, Akrasia. Which is it? Apparently "many scientists would regard this scenario as extreme both in how soon it develops, how large, rapid and ubiquitous the climate changes are." Where's your consensus there?

Why did they have to lie to Bush? If the science is as scary as it is, surely they didn't have to stretch and dramatise it into something unrealistic?

In any event, The Guardian chose to not mention any of this background. You have to ask yourself why. You think it's perfectly acceptable.

Again you bring in a strawman argument about a pandemic, as if we didn't have any experience of such pandemics in the past.

Oneiric 3

Extreme scenario or not, it was still of load of arse. The pentagon should stick to what it does best: Bombing countless innocents in their own homelands using the very latest in sophisticated scientific technology.

Oneiric 3

One would be forgiven if they read this as satire, but disturbingly, it isn't:

"Unearthed and VICE have gone through documents prepared by some of the world’s biggest weapons manufacturers to see how they are responding to the climate emergency. We’ve learned that the arms industry fears cuts in fossil fuel use will undermine demand for highly polluting products like tanks, planes and ships. But from developing new, greener weapons to spotting “financial opportunities” amid threats to public safety caused by environmental disaster, the industry is looking for ways the climate crisis can increase sales."

Raytheon, an American aerospace and defence company which had net sales worth in excess of $27 billion in 2018, told the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) last year that it’s investing in technologies that are either “low carbon or do not require as much fossil fuel”. So you can give Mother Earth a big hug at the same time as you eviscerate your enemies from the battlefield."

How weapons manufacturers are preparing for climate change - Unearthed (greenpeace.org)

Oneiric 3

...

Banana Republic 1

Ferdinad Porsches design for the tiger tank incorporated 4 independent electric motors as the power units. Of course with 1930s tech it would have been a gigantic thing, considerable bigger then the 80 tonne diesel model.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117904917#Comment_117904917

Given that I didn't bring up either of these articles as evidence of anything, the 17 year old guardian article reporting on an 18 year old report prepared by non scientists for a non scientific audience is not something I'm going to waste any more time defending. It was a scenario prepared for a political purpose that a vague basis in science but doesn't have any references in it, and it was reported as a political story in an era where climate science was under constant siege from corporate propaganda

The guardian didn't misreport anything about the report, they should have been more clear that it was not based on projections and the assumptions were based on a scenario where it is assumed we are already in the middle of an undetected abrupt climate change transition.

In terms of the scientific basis for abrupt climate change in paeleoclimate, for example the Younger Dryass event, where northern hemisphere temperatures around greenland dropped rapidly by 10c in just one decade

There are historical precedents for extreme rapid abrupt regional climate change. Global climate change on the order of 5c in 1 century would be unprecedented in millions of years, but regional climactic shifts can be triggered by events that we don't yet fully understand.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905143#Comment_117905143

Ahem, did you find the link to this in here?

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905538#Comment_117905538

And there's the stepdown. Yesterday it was based on science and plausible, today it was only vaguely based on science and was political. Climate science was under constant siege, therefore they made stuff. The report was still endorsed by two prominent heads of climate research bodies, but we'll just ignore that fact.

And finally you conceed the point on the shortcomings of The Guardian reporting.

Oneiric 3

In fairness to the Guardian, they really go all out in this piece to appear neutral and balanced by actually questioning these outlandish claims made by the US Military Machine.

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Environment | The Guardian

Akrasia

I defended the guardian for reporting the IPCC as they are presented.

I defended the guardian for reporting the Pentagon report as presented

I didn't say that the pentagon report was a scientific report, i clearly said that it was framed through the lens of the US defense forces and in one of my first posts on the topic, I said that they had big conflicts of interest.

My standards for the media are to accurately report the news. I do not want the media to be putting up journalists as filters to tell us what we are 'supposed to believe' on scientific matters. Journalists are not qualified to assess the science 99% of the time

The question I always expect journalists and others to ask is 'Whats your source' and then report accurately what that source says, and then let the public make up their minds.

You are the slippery one, you pretend you care about poor journalism, when really, you only care about reporting of things you do not like to hear.

The IPCC synthesis reports that I keep bringing up is the pinnacle of climate science every 5 or so years they are released. Instead of addressing these scientific studies, you would rather waste days arguing about one article talking about one non scientific report years ago than talk about the best most recent science.

For you, and your buddies it is much more important to find a few instances of scientists being wrong, so you can 'poison the well' and hand wave away the evidence on which the scientific consensus was formed.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905677#Comment_117905677

You've only gone back 18 years in time for this little nugget

Any chance you could challenge your mates over in the denial thread on this very forum who still think we're heading for an ice age?

Oneiric 3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905736#Comment_117905736

8 years, actually. And summer sea ice is still there. But glad to see you coming around to the idea that the Guardian is full of little 'nuggets'.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117905897#Comment_117905897

Sorry, my eyesight isn't great, I thought the article was written in 2003. It was actually written in 2013

What year do you 'predict' will see the first ice free arctic summer?

The guardian is 200 years old. Maybe you can find something from 1821 where they said the latest version of the blacksmiths anvil is the definitive anvil and won't be beaten

That'll certainly show me

We can all go back in time and find times when people made mistakes. I only have to go back a few pages to find you personally making an eejit of yourself trying to claim that everyone you don't like is a neoliberal, demonstrating that you don't know what that word means.

I won't go back too far into your posting history, it would be a bit creepy if I went back 18 years looking for something you said back then that didn't turn out to be true.

Gaoth Laidir

At the current rate it would take around 107 years for an ice-free Arctic summer, so close to the year 2130. But sure we'll all have shriveled up at that stage.

Oneiric 3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117906054#Comment_117906054

It would be easier just to acknowledge that the Guardian is every bit as full of it as the tabloids. They sensationalise and they lie, as has been demonstrated to you over the last few pages. They are just yuppies pretending not to be.

Banana Republic 1

https://www.channel4.com/news/general-sherman-ancient-tree-wrapped-in-foil-to-protect-it-from-california-wildfire

yavn eth noij

Gaoth Laidir

I'm not sure what joining the navy has to do with anything...

Speaking of the sea, the cold subpolar gyre anomaly present over the past few years seems to have disappeared.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117906264#Comment_117906264

Except that isn’t true.

Even if the guardian isn’t flawless in its reporting, and I never said it was, it is not comparable to the likes of the daily mail, the express or even the Telegraph on matters of science reporting.

but we’ve gone on about the guardian for days now and it’s not the topic of this thread. Read the IPCC report

Banana Republic 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117907239#Comment_117907239

I was referring to thee broken record and conspiracy theme that has infected this forum.

https://theconversation.com/biden-urges-countries-to-slash-methane-emissions-30-heres-why-its-crucial-for-protecting-climate-and-health-and-how-it-can-pay-for-itself-168220

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117907286#Comment_117907286

I'm still no wiser.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/bush-fires-australia-smoke-phytoplankton-study/d3c377c2-7b0a-4506-b466-1c2f4c1aa3e5?ocid=Social-9NewsA

700 million plus tons of carbon from the giant Australian bushfires 2 years ago was absorbed by plankton created by the fires!!

So much we don't fully understand yet

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117910720#Comment_117910720

Very interesting. It would be amazing if seedling the ocean with iron could work as a way to sequester atmospheric CO2

I know this has already been under investigation but a natural experiment like this will provide really valuable data

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200217162348.htm

studies like this poured cold water on the idea, but if there are certain areas of the ocean that are primed for blooms then we could have a really useful tool to help buy us some time

Nabber

Buy us some time from and for what?

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117918708#Comment_117918708

To get down to net zero carbon emissions

Danno

Cyclones could soon devastate Europe, warns ‘storm chaser’ climate scientist | Euronews

Apparently 27c seas for northern Europe. I presume Youghal would be the new Malaga of Europe, that is if it's not under-water by 2050: https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/map-shows-how-much-ireland-23320870

Gaoth Laidir

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921503#Comment_117921503

They actually said 2030 in that article. Even more outlandish. What are these people on? Pretty much half of Dublin gone in 9 years.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117921503#Comment_117921503

After all the Shiite I had this week about the Guardian being a bad source, you come along and cite the daily mirror???