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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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8 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)

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.

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.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You have no clue

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

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.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

What’s is the context for this.

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!!!

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

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

An advance in understanding high-latitude climate change is that Arctic/midlatitude weather linkages depend not only on the magnitude of AA, but also on the location, amplitude, and movement of meanders in the polar jet stream [22, 35–37]. That this connection does not appear in all years or all months is an argument for the intermittency of weather linkages despite continued AA. Spatial and temporal variations in AA patterns also contribute to intermittency [38]. Inspection of year-to-year variability reported in studies claiming weak multi-decadal trends in linkages (e.g. [39]), suggests such intermittency. In fact, amplified Arctic warming may not initiate midlatitude connections, but instead intensify intrinsic linkages by enhancing the amplitude of existing large-scale Rossby waves—subject to the influences of sea-surface temperature (SST) anomaly patterns and geographic features—and therefore contribute to the formation of stationary blocking anticyclones [37, 40]. Amplified Rossby waves lead to increased northward warm advection as well as southward cold advection between the subarctic and midlatitudes. Some metrics of jet-stream waviness (e.g. sinuosity, meridional circulation index, local wave activity flux) have indicated an increased frequency of high-amplitude jet stream days since AA emerged in the mid-1990s, embedded within large year-to-year winter natural variability [41–46]. Because cold and warm extreme events often occur simultaneously in adjacent regions, according to the axis and amplitude of jet-stream waves as they progress, metrics based on averages over a season, across large regions, or over many model ensemble members tend to produce insignificant composite signals [3, 47]. This fact is one source of discrepancy among studies.

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

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

Akrasia wrote: »

Your question about swallow was something similar to a jerry seinfield stand up routine

So, what's with the swallows??

You seem to have remembered some guy on the radio mention climate change in the same conversation as swallows but can't remember what he said

I don't exactly have a lot to go on there


And Heller does not have to be paid directly by Exxon Mobil, I never said he was, I said, and showed in that video, that Exxon Mobil and lots of other energy companies have been funding climate change misinformation through giving out money to politicians 'think tanks' and PR organisations who then funnel that money to people who engage in anti scientific propaganda

They fund groups like the heartland institute (at least 700k in funding for them up to 2014) who then pay 'skeptics' and 'influencers' to speak at their conferences

Heller has attended the Heartland conferences, as well as he CPAC conference as a sponsored speaker paid for by 'the CO2 coalition' who are funded by the energy industry.
He's been speakers at events hosted by 'The Cooler Heads Coalition' etc etc.

He as also commissioned to write a book by the 'Institute of Policy Affairs' another 'think tank' who doesn't reveal their donors but investigations have shown them to be funded by the energy and mining industry

The energy industry, including Exxon Mobil have been funding this misinformation campaign for decades, it's very well established. Heller can deny that he has ever been paid directly by Exxon Mobil, but if he is getting paid by any of these conferences, or media organisations that only exist because they are funded by people and corporations eager to delay action on climate change, then he is taking their money

Now, I'm not saying Heller is saying these things Because he is being paid to say them, He is an absolute loon who probably believes his own nonsense and is too stupid and arrogant to change his mind. But the if it wasn't for the hundreds of millions pumped into climate change denial, Heller would almost certainly not have the platform he has now

The man has absolutely no scientific credibility, and even when it comes to youtube debates, he was humiliated by Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield, a science Journalist) until he ran away and refused to engage any further

And on top of his scientific ignorance on climate change, he's also a conspiracy theorist who believes Biden stole the election from Trump amongst many other far right fringe nonsense

Heller has repeatedly been caught distorting data, misquoting scientists, and making the most rudimentary errors in data analysis. Nobody should use him as a source for anything, he's not peer reviewed, in fact, he's created his own blog for the distinct reason that even Anthony Watts got sick of his bullsh1t and booted him off his site

BettyS wrote: »

We cannot always extrapolate a right or wrong from our hypothesis testing. Sometimes, our present methodology is limited and hence our answer is tinged with equipoise.

You would think that proving the link between smoking and lung cancer could have been definitively answered as a yes or no pretty quickly. And yet it took 30 years for expert consensus that smoking causes lung cancer.

Science is sadly not as simple as you make it seem. Unless we know all the explanatory variables (which is impossible), our models will always be shrouded in uncertainty. And no, they won’t give us a simple yes or no

But common sense should prevail. Summers are getting warmer (we can objectively see records been broken) and disaster events. I am sure that in time that climate change will be like smoking. People will ask how could they possibly not have realised it was man-made

BettyS wrote: »

On observation-level, there is undoubtedly climate change. That is undeniable. When better models emerge and there isn’t the same financial incentive to conceal climate change, I am certain there will be overwhelming consensus

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!!!