Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
So just to reiterate.

Everyone at least agrees that climate change is happening.
Not everyone agrees on the cause.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Is convincing enough for me.
Sure. The debate isn't about whether climate change is happening or not, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous and you should probably question them further. It's a strawman developed so people don't need to address the actual arguments put forward. I'm going to quote myself because I cbf typing it out again:

"The issues include 1) how much we're responsible for, 2) when will these changes manifest themselves, 3) is said impact going to be beneficial or negative, and 4) are there changes we can make now to minimise said impact and reduce the magnitude/costs of said impact; and 5) do those changes compare favourably economically to the cost of adapting to the impact."


How is it an attack? It's a challenge to him to present his arguments and theories to those best able to judge them. Let him present his evidence, let him contradict the specialists in the climate sciences, let him prove that they are prideful and let him show how they've all missed what he has seen.

THEN let him come back and explain it all in layman terms to those of us who readily agree that we are not qualified in the topic. Do all that FIRST and establish his credibility and reputation and then I'll accept he was right and the greatest minds got it all wrong.

Till then though I'll trust in the scientific community. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think so I don't know why you're interested.
Question for you Huge Huge - did you read the PDF I linked to where a professor of physics attempted to submit a comment to a journal correcting some clearly erroneous science? Just wondering.

I have never once claimed I can see anything that "the climate scientists" can't. Your continued claims of this frankly make you look rather petty. No, I'm not a published scientist - so what? The thread is about the merits or otherwise of climate change. I believe that I've presented some pretty compelling evidence/arguments about a couple of topics that may get some people considering what they're being told. I don't need to be a published scientist to refer to scientific studies which ARE published. I don't need to be a published scientist to bring some of the uncertainties to people's attention - besides, as an engineering scientist, I'm probably better qualified than most to understand the actual science behind the statements, would you agree?

The media look for the simple, dramatic headlines. I can categorically say that in EVERY case I have ever investigated on the topic, the media report/s dramatise the actual paper almost beyond recognition. In EVERY case, the actual scientific paper is couched in so many doubts, so much uncertainty, so many "maybe"s and "possibly"s, which rarely - if ever - reach the news stories. But anyone who never looks into it, will never know those things.

Another question which is pertinent - are you trusting of the media in general? Do you believe what they tell you?
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
Sure. The debate isn't about whether climate change is happening or not, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous and you should probably question them further. It's a strawman developed so people don't need to address the actual arguments put forward. I'm going to quote myself because I cbf typing it out again:

"The issues include 1) how much we're responsible for, 2) when will these changes manifest themselves, 3) is said impact going to be beneficial or negative, and 4) are there changes we can make now to minimise said impact and reduce the magnitude/costs of said impact; and 5) do those changes compare favourably economically to the cost of adapting to the impact."




Question for you Huge Huge - did you read the PDF I linked to where a professor of physics attempted to submit a comment to a journal correcting some clearly erroneous science? Just wondering.

I have never once claimed I can see anything that "the climate scientists" can't. Your continued claims of this frankly make you look rather petty. No, I'm not a published scientist - so what? The thread is about the merits or otherwise of climate change. I believe that I've presented some pretty compelling evidence/arguments about a couple of topics that may get some people considering what they're being told. I don't need to be a published scientist to refer to scientific studies which ARE published. I don't need to be a published scientist to bring some of the uncertainties to people's attention - besides, as an engineering scientist, I'm probably better qualified than most to understand the actual science behind the statements, would you agree?

The media look for the simple, dramatic headlines. I can categorically say that in EVERY case I have ever investigated on the topic, the media report/s dramatise the actual paper almost beyond recognition. In EVERY case, the actual scientific paper is couched in so many doubts, so much uncertainty, so many "maybe"s and "possibly"s, which rarely - if ever - reach the news stories. But anyone who never looks into it, will never know those things.

Another question which is pertinent - are you trusting of the media in general? Do you believe what they tell you?
Last first. Hell no.
Never argued that you aren't better qualified. If you can be believed you have a couple of engineering credits so at least you're better qualified to comment...on matters engineering. You can also comment on matters outside your field and your opinion is your right.

Tell me, do you believe that the experts, the specialists haven't seen EVERY SINGLE THING YOU PRESENTED? I mean every word you wrote or points you raised on the footy fan site ,do you believe that any of it is original?

If no then are you saying there's a conspiracy to stop 'the truth' getting out?
I mean, you alluded to something sinister just in this post. You know, the professor of physics who did something and pdf happened etc.

So, are you on to something here? You're writing this to give the uneducated in the field 'something to think about'. Have you thought 'hang on, I should point this out to the experts' ?Give them something to think about.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
So if you don't believe the media as far as you can throw them - that's something we certainly have in common, btw - why do you believe them on this topic?

Can you point out where I claimed anything I've posted is original, or somehow new, that has been missed by people who have dedicated their lives to the subject? Pretty sure I haven't, nor would I. Most of what I've presented is facts, and I've either supported those with evidence or it's easily discovered. I'm not claiming conspiracy; I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth.

The fact is, most people don't care about "the truth". They want to be told stuff without having to think about it themselves. Which is fair enough, we are bombarded with so much information from so many sources these days, we're not functionally equipped to deal with it. Our systems are geared towards hyperbole, because that's what sells papers and gets clicks. Drama, action, disaster.

Most people also don't seem to possess the critical thinking skills to differentiate between things which are relevant and which aren't. For example, I've seen people arguing until they're blue in the face that a rising cost of natural disasters worldwide is proof of climate change, things must be getting worse! Which does not stand up to even casual scrutiny: when adjusted for wealth, inflation and increased development in areas subject to disaster, the cost of natural disasters worldwide is actually FALLING. The cost in pure dollar terms is rising but it doesn't illustrate the point the proponents of that argument think it does. An analogy could be the "wage gap" between males and females, where the figures are based on simply taking average earnings across each gender and compares it without adjusting for any of the dozens of factors which influence the basic figures. It's an argument of omission, and in my eyes it's dishonest or stupid - take your pick. Hell sometimes it's both.

Huge Huge, you put a lot of faith in "science" without - by your own admission - understanding most of it. That's your right, you can form your opinions however you wish. But continually casting aspersions on my character, my qualifications and experience, my knowledge of this field...none of that helps your argument at all. All I was trying to point out with the PDF above (which I'm assuming you haven't read, bc reasons) was that the system is fallible. It's not perfect. We're all human, we all make mistakes. I've studied this topic in enough depth and for long enough to tell you that it's probably worse than most fields; certainly worse than engineering which is a field where if you make a mistake, people can die.

But I also know you won't take my word for it, which is also your right. I'm not going to waste time trying to point you towards any number of scientists etc who actually don't agree with "the consensus" position on climate change, because no doubt you'll have reasons why they can't be trusted, yadda yadda confirmation bias etc etc. You have your position and you're not willing to entertain any evidence to the contrary. As is your right. And I will continue to provide information, links to peer-reviewed studies or articles by highly qualified climate scientists etc about any component of climate change to whoever wishes to discuss it. As is my right.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
No no no. I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you questions. I didn't say you claimed there is a conspiracy but you know, the physics professor thing. No, you put that forward as a 'reason why I don't or haven't written a scientific paper' or why you haven't corrected the mistakes of the experts.

You're appealing to authority, your own authority in a field you're not qualified in. Sure, you've probably got some decent qualifications and I 'just have to accept that' yet that very act is something you find reprehensible! You see, if I accept your claim about your qualifications then I'm guilty of taking something on faith. We all do this to some degree or another.

You ask where I get my info or who do I believe. I listen to various science/ critical thinking podcasts. SGU is one worth mentioning. I have two older brothers who are very bright and we discuss diverse topics. I don't blindly accept everything yet like yourself and most others I have to choose what I think is the most likely to be factual.

I'd be great if you could simply state your beef with the consensus.

Put simply I believe there's plenty of evidence that human activity has upset what I believe is a finely balanced system. I also think the exact amount of disruption is not known but I lean towards the moderate side of predictions. I do however think that even the moderate claims are gravely serious.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
26,130
10,526
Third Rock from the Sun
I'd be great if you could simply state your beef with the consensus.

Put simply I believe there's plenty of evidence that human activity has upset what I believe is a finely balanced system. I also think the exact amount of disruption is not known but I lean towards the moderate side of predictions. I do however think that even the moderate claims are gravely serious.
I'd like to know what you think the consensus is besides:
1- Climate change exists.
2- Climate change is to an unknown degree, anthropologically driven.

You swear by the scientific method, yet you don't seem to understand a scientific study or its process.
You appear to ignore the fact that many media publications will use extracts from it to further their agenda, leaving extremely important caveats from the study's authors out of their own publications on the subject.

Fact: No Climate Change study has reached a theory stage, none.
Fact: No Model has withstood the test of time, or been even close to reality.

Maybe you should ask yourself why...

Climate Science is known as "junk science" in the community as a whole. Not because it's not a serious and important matter, but because of all the gaping holes in it.

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue the efforts to reduce our footprint, invest in renewables, reforest, reduce waste, clean our oceans, etc...

Evidently, none of the above would be harmful, on the contrary! As long as it is done responsibly, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as all those alarmists advocate.
 
Last edited:

soup

State of Origin Captain
9,609
7,498
T’ba
So, it was reported this week that the Antarctic set two high temperature records; 18 and then 20 degrees yesterday. Coincided with a massive chuck of polar ice falling into the ocean. History shows that if the earth warms two degrees on average, the oceans become 6m higher. Bit scary.

PS. This was reported on ABC. So media...
 
Last edited:
2,916
3,733
I'd like to know what you think the consensus is besides:
1- Climate change exists.
2- Climate change is to an unknown degree, anthropologically driven.

You swear by the scientific method, yet you don't seem to understand a scientific study or its process.
You appear to ignore the fact that many media publications will use extracts from it to further their agenda, leaving extremely important caveats from the study's authors out of their own publications on the subject.

Fact: No Climate Change study has reached a theory stage, none.
Fact: No Model has withstood the test of time, or been even close to reality.

Maybe you should ask yourself why...

Climate Science is known as "junk science" in the community as a whole. Not because it's not a serious and important matter, but because of all the gaping holes in it.

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue the efforts to reduce our footprint, invest in renewables, reforest, reduce waste, clean our oceans, etc...

Evidently, none of the above would be harmful, on the contrary! As long as it is done responsibly, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as all those alarmists advocate.
I'd love to hear the media agenda you think is happening? Those rich renewable energy companies that dominate the stock exchange over those poor little mining companies must really being putting the pressure on the media.

Another thing that I find funny is, you agree it's happening but to a tiny amount.... So what?! That just means that it will be our great great grandkids problem instead of our grandkids. Water dripping onto a rock isn't doing much damage but it will eventually erode away at a rock, eating poorly won't kill you now but it will likely eventually lead to health issues. Imagine the generations in the far, far, far future... "they knew it was happening but it wasn't THAT bad back then so they were right to not do anything and just let us deal with it."...
 

Huge

State of Origin Captain
9,367
6,247
Ipswich
I'd like to know what you think the consensus is besides:
1- Climate change exists.
2- Climate change is to an unknown degree, anthropologically driven.

You swear by the scientific method, yet you don't seem to understand a scientific study or its process.
You appear to ignore the fact that many media publications will use extracts from it to further their agenda, leaving extremely important caveats from the study's authors out of their own publications on the subject.

Fact: No Climate Change study has reached a theory stage, none.
Fact: No Model has withstood the test of time, or been even close to reality.

Maybe you should ask yourself why...

Climate Science is known as "junk science" in the community as a whole. Not because it's not a serious and important matter, but because of all the gaping holes in it.

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't continue the efforts to reduce our footprint, invest in renewables, reforest, reduce waste, clean our oceans, etc...

Evidently, none of the above would be harmful, on the contrary! As long as it is done responsibly, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as all those alarmists advocate.
Not really sure why you believe I don't understand 'a scientific study or it's process'.
Your two 'facts' are simply unsubstantiated claims. Media publications? Do you mean newspapers? Climate science is known in 'the community as junk science'? Which community is that? So a lack equals junk? Not sure why you're lecturing me about the meritorious efforts many are making to improve our world!

I wholeheartedly support those efforts and I too don't think we should act rashly.
Whatever makes you think I'd support that? It seems you're following Morkels lead, you want to criticize me and knock me down a peg so you invent a position you think I hold and let fly. Bit nutty.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
So, it was reported this week that the Antarctic set two high temperature records; 18 and then 20 degrees yesterday. Coincided with a massive chuck of polar ice falling into the ocean. History shows that if the earth warms two degrees on average, the oceans become 6m higher. Bit scary.

PS. This was reported on ABC. So media...
I could find a story reporting that a single Argentinian research station at the far northernmost point of the Antarctic Peninsula, Esperanza base, set its highest ever recorded maximum temperature of 18.3*C on Tuesday. For context, "ever" is since 1981 - so, in the past 40 years. I couldn't find anything about the 20*C temp but it could well be true.

I presume the chunk of ice you're talking about is from the Pine Island glacier, which is located in West Antarctic and calves icebergs regularly. The rate of calving of this glacier and its neighbours has increased over the period we've been able to observe it, ie since satellites. I'm not sure if you know this, but it's considered to be due to warming ocean water, not air temperatures. Glaciers are also highly subject to snow accumulation, since that's what builds them; a glacier experiencing decreased snowfall will logically decrease in size. Then there's all kinds of related factors such as ablation (ice evaporation), etc etc. It's not as simple as "air temperatures are warming therefore the glacier is shrinking". To further complicate things, this particular area has a high concentration of volcanoes - some of which were only discovered in the past couple of years - and is also the location of a mantle plume; that's an area where magma is rising towards the surface, causing a higher heat flux to the ground surface over that area. It's unknown how geologically active the area is. It's unknown if the rate of heat generated from this mantle plume has changed over time. We know basically nothing about the implications.

In any case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be decreasing in size and mass. However, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is MUCH larger (over 91% of total Antarctic ice) and far more stable as it's mostly founded on bedrock not ocean water, appears to be increasing in size and mass - more than offsetting the losses experienced elsewhere. However, this is subject to significant uncertainties and there's an argument whether East Antarctica is actually gaining or losing mass. Scientific studies in recent years have shown a decrease of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, or an increase of +60 ± 13 Gt/yr. Those studies use different methods and inputs obviously, but are both based on the same data. There's a significant difference there!! Which just illustrates my point about the uncertainties and caveats - scientists can't even agree whether Antarctica as a whole is losing or gaining ice!!! But would you know that from the media reports...?

Can you provide a reference for the 6m at 2*C claim? I'd be interested to check it out.

I'd love to hear the media agenda you think is happening? Those rich renewable energy companies that dominate the stock exchange over those poor little mining companies must really being putting the pressure on the media.

Another thing that I find funny is, you agree it's happening but to a tiny amount.... So what?! That just means that it will be our great great grandkids problem instead of our grandkids. Water dripping onto a rock isn't doing much damage but it will eventually erode away at a rock, eating poorly won't kill you now but it will likely eventually lead to health issues. Imagine the generations in the far, far, far future... "they knew it was happening but it wasn't THAT bad back then so they were right to not do anything and just let us deal with it."...
With all due respect, a huge consideration is the rate of change. 150 years ago there was concern about the amount of horse manure building up in cities of the time. Fearmongers were warning that our cities would be buried in the piles of shit if things continued the way it was. But, technology. Horses became superseded, and the issues they brought also disappeared. And this is where people's own worldviews influence their opinions; I am of the belief that human ingenuity and technological advances can solve many, if not all, of the worst problems we experience. Many people disagree, and that's fine. However history appears to be on my side, humans are a remarkably resilient species, having habitated basically the entire globe from the equator to the poles. We use resources to exponentially improve our lives.

Again it boils down to the points I've raised - how much can we do now and at what cost. If there's an imminent catastrophe threatening humanity's very existence, then sure, drastic change is necessary. But there is ZERO evidence of that occurring at this time. At this point, the best science is pointing to gradual changes taking place over centuries. Going off the past, technology is likely to evolve to the point that life even by 2100 will probably barely resemble that which we live today.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,709
18,780
I could find a story reporting that a single Argentinian research station at the far northernmost point of the Antarctic Peninsula, Esperanza base, set its highest ever recorded maximum temperature of 18.3*C on Tuesday. For context, "ever" is since 1981 - so, in the past 40 years. I couldn't find anything about the 20*C temp but it could well be true.

I presume the chunk of ice you're talking about is from the Pine Island glacier, which is located in West Antarctic and calves icebergs regularly. The rate of calving of this glacier and its neighbours has increased over the period we've been able to observe it, ie since satellites. I'm not sure if you know this, but it's considered to be due to warming ocean water, not air temperatures. Glaciers are also highly subject to snow accumulation, since that's what builds them; a glacier experiencing decreased snowfall will logically decrease in size. Then there's all kinds of related factors such as ablation (ice evaporation), etc etc. It's not as simple as "air temperatures are warming therefore the glacier is shrinking". To further complicate things, this particular area has a high concentration of volcanoes - some of which were only discovered in the past couple of years - and is also the location of a mantle plume; that's an area where magma is rising towards the surface, causing a higher heat flux to the ground surface over that area. It's unknown how geologically active the area is. It's unknown if the rate of heat generated from this mantle plume has changed over time. We know basically nothing about the implications.

In any case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be decreasing in size and mass. However, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is MUCH larger (over 91% of total Antarctic ice) and far more stable as it's mostly founded on bedrock not ocean water, appears to be increasing in size and mass - more than offsetting the losses experienced elsewhere. However, this is subject to significant uncertainties and there's an argument whether East Antarctica is actually gaining or losing mass. Scientific studies in recent years have shown a decrease of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, or an increase of +60 ± 13 Gt/yr. Those studies use different methods and inputs obviously, but are both based on the same data. There's a significant difference there!! Which just illustrates my point about the uncertainties and caveats - scientists can't even agree whether Antarctica as a whole is losing or gaining ice!!! But would you know that from the media reports...?

Can you provide a reference for the 6m at 2*C claim? I'd be interested to check it out.



With all due respect, a huge consideration is the rate of change. 150 years ago there was concern about the amount of horse manure building up in cities of the time. Fearmongers were warning that our cities would be buried in the piles of shit if things continued the way it was. But, technology. Horses became superseded, and the issues they brought also disappeared. And this is where people's own worldviews influence their opinions; I am of the belief that human ingenuity and technological advances can solve many, if not all, of the worst problems we experience. Many people disagree, and that's fine. However history appears to be on my side, humans are a remarkably resilient species, having habitated basically the entire globe from the equator to the poles. We use resources to exponentially improve our lives.

Again it boils down to the points I've raised - how much can we do now and at what cost. If there's an imminent catastrophe threatening humanity's very existence, then sure, drastic change is necessary. But there is ZERO evidence of that occurring at this time. At this point, the best science is pointing to gradual changes taking place over centuries. Going off the past, technology is likely to evolve to the point that life even by 2100 will probably barely resemble that which we live today.
A logical extension of that would be that "technology" saves us by turning to alternative, greener energy sources like renewables. But "technology" is being held back by rich and powerful resource companies. Once again, technology is great, but imagine how much easier things would be if we brought more attention to the dangers of greed and self-interest?
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
No no no. I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you questions. I didn't say you claimed there is a conspiracy but you know, the physics professor thing. No, you put that forward as a 'reason why I don't or haven't written a scientific paper' or why you haven't corrected the mistakes of the experts.

You're appealing to authority, your own authority in a field you're not qualified in. Sure, you've probably got some decent qualifications and I 'just have to accept that' yet that very act is something you find reprehensible! You see, if I accept your claim about your qualifications then I'm guilty of taking something on faith. We all do this to some degree or another.

You ask where I get my info or who do I believe. I listen to various science/ critical thinking podcasts. SGU is one worth mentioning. I have two older brothers who are very bright and we discuss diverse topics. I don't blindly accept everything yet like yourself and most others I have to choose what I think is the most likely to be factual.

I'd be great if you could simply state your beef with the consensus.

Put simply I believe there's plenty of evidence that human activity has upset what I believe is a finely balanced system. I also think the exact amount of disruption is not known but I lean towards the moderate side of predictions. I do however think that even the moderate claims are gravely serious.
Honestly, I'm tiring of this generic, detail-free conversation. You're wriggling like a cut snake, trying to deflect from the particulars to the general.

I didn't put forward the professor's example of trying (and failing) to get a comment published in a reputable scientific journal as a reason for any of my actions - comprehension fail. What I actually said was I don't have the time nor the correct tools to commit to attempting to produce a paper of my own. I could gain access to the tools, essentially it boils down to time - my 5 boys are between 1yo and 12yo, so it's likely I won't have the time in the near future either!! But that changes nothing.

I'm not appealing to any authority, I'm pointing out my qualifications which you're free to believe or otherwise. You're pointing out that you have zero qualifications so you're not equipped to understand the scientific details (which I don't agree with, btw). You're casting doubt on everything I present simply because I'm not qualified in the field either. In response, I've presented relevant information, ie my engineering degrees. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't change anything, it shouldn't matter who I am or what qualifications I do or don't have - information is information, and if it's backed up by science then that's the important thing. Many of the brightest minds throughout history have had very limited (or no) formal scientific education.

State what you understand the consensus to be, and I'll state my beef with it. I've asked you repeatedly throughout this thread to define your understanding of "climate change" but you refuse. So it'd be great if you'd clarify, so we know we're discussing the same thing.

My issue with your position is that there is zero evidence of the "finely balanced system" you believe. I've provided evidence earlier in the thread that on the contrary, the earth system is heavily buffered from significant change and is remarkably stable despite all sorts of changes occurring, constantly. Which may or may not cause you to rethink your position, if the entire premise is possibly incorrect. You're welcome to believe what you will.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
A logical extension of that would be that "technology" saves us by turning to alternative, greener energy sources like renewables. But "technology" is being held back by rich and powerful resource companies. Once again, technology is great, but imagine how much easier things would be if we brought more attention to the dangers of greed and self-interest?
Completely agree that powerful interests stymie technological progress!! And progress in general. From an engineering perspective, at this time, nuclear is the only 'clean' power source than can even hope to come close to providing the vast amounts of power our modern Western society needs. Renewables may play a part, but they all have their problems, most of which are significant. I'm happy to have those discussions too btw, if you're keen? 😉 Not to say of course that technology can't overcome those limitations, but it's also an industry filled with greed and self-interest, as are most. Hydro is great, but there's only so many places you can build dams of the scale required. Same as geothermal. There's all kinds of solutions, but not many on the scale we need.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,103
3,360
Completely agree that powerful interests stymie technological progress!! And progress in general. From an engineering perspective, at this time, nuclear is the only 'clean' power source than can even hope to come close to providing the vast amounts of power our modern Western society needs. Renewables may play a part, but they all have their problems, most of which are significant. I'm happy to have those discussions too btw, if you're keen? 😉 Not to say of course that technology can't overcome those limitations, but it's also an industry filled with greed and self-interest, as are most. Hydro is great, but there's only so many places you can build dams of the scale required. Same as geothermal. There's all kinds of solutions, but not many on the scale we need.
Yep, why Australia is so keen to sell Uranium to almost anyone, keen to take the world’s nuclear waste return for hard currency, but so reluctant to use it, yet so anti- carbon emissions is extremely frustrating.

We are so immature as a country we can’t even have a reasoned discussion over nuclear energy. The scare-mongering brigade influence the politicians far more than any other interest group, and that is the end of the discussion.

The first mention of Chernobyl or Fukushima and that is the end of the discussion regardless of the technical merits of MSR’s or Thorium reactors that CANNOT meltdown in the way we have seen with fission reactors in the past...
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,431
1,119
Bundy
Thankfully my local Fed MP (Keith Pitt) has started rocking the boat a bit about it. Nuclear legitimately needs to be investigated, in my opinion. Our electricity grid here on the eastern seaboard is remarkably fragile.
 

soup

State of Origin Captain
9,609
7,498
T’ba
I could find a story reporting that a single Argentinian research station at the far northernmost point of the Antarctic Peninsula, Esperanza base, set its highest ever recorded maximum temperature of 18.3*C on Tuesday. For context, "ever" is since 1981 - so, in the past 40 years. I couldn't find anything about the 20*C temp but it could well be true.

I presume the chunk of ice you're talking about is from the Pine Island glacier, which is located in West Antarctic and calves icebergs regularly. The rate of calving of this glacier and its neighbours has increased over the period we've been able to observe it, ie since satellites. I'm not sure if you know this, but it's considered to be due to warming ocean water, not air temperatures. Glaciers are also highly subject to snow accumulation, since that's what builds them; a glacier experiencing decreased snowfall will logically decrease in size. Then there's all kinds of related factors such as ablation (ice evaporation), etc etc. It's not as simple as "air temperatures are warming therefore the glacier is shrinking". To further complicate things, this particular area has a high concentration of volcanoes - some of which were only discovered in the past couple of years - and is also the location of a mantle plume; that's an area where magma is rising towards the surface, causing a higher heat flux to the ground surface over that area. It's unknown how geologically active the area is. It's unknown if the rate of heat generated from this mantle plume has changed over time. We know basically nothing about the implications.

In any case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be decreasing in size and mass. However, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is MUCH larger (over 91% of total Antarctic ice) and far more stable as it's mostly founded on bedrock not ocean water, appears to be increasing in size and mass - more than offsetting the losses experienced elsewhere. However, this is subject to significant uncertainties and there's an argument whether East Antarctica is actually gaining or losing mass. Scientific studies in recent years have shown a decrease of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, or an increase of +60 ± 13 Gt/yr. Those studies use different methods and inputs obviously, but are both based on the same data. There's a significant difference there!! Which just illustrates my point about the uncertainties and caveats - scientists can't even agree whether Antarctica as a whole is losing or gaining ice!!! But would you know that from the media reports...?

Can you provide a reference for the 6m at 2*C claim? I'd be interested to check it out.



With all due respect, a huge consideration is the rate of change. 150 years ago there was concern about the amount of horse manure building up in cities of the time. Fearmongers were warning that our cities would be buried in the piles of shit if things continued the way it was. But, technology. Horses became superseded, and the issues they brought also disappeared. And this is where people's own worldviews influence their opinions; I am of the belief that human ingenuity and technological advances can solve many, if not all, of the worst problems we experience. Many people disagree, and that's fine. However history appears to be on my side, humans are a remarkably resilient species, having habitated basically the entire globe from the equator to the poles. We use resources to exponentially improve our lives.

Again it boils down to the points I've raised - how much can we do now and at what cost. If there's an imminent catastrophe threatening humanity's very existence, then sure, drastic change is necessary. But there is ZERO evidence of that occurring at this time. At this point, the best science is pointing to gradual changes taking place over centuries. Going off the past, technology is likely to evolve to the point that life even by 2100 will probably barely resemble that which we live today.
Hey mate, I don’t have the time to research properly with a baby teething, my partner doing her back a couple of days ago, Nines, resting for four days of night shift starting tonight, etc, but a quick google search revealed a few articles (not that I particularly trust them). Here’s one: (**** the media)


This isn’t where I saw it (ABC), but there’s a number of articles that suggest 2 degrees MAY = 6m sea rise. I notice some say over hundreds of years, some say millennia, others say nothing of time.
 
Last edited:

Jason Simmons

NRL Captain
3,103
3,360
Hey mate, I don’t have the time to research properly with a baby teething, my partner doing her back a couple of days ago, Nines, resting for four days of night shift starting tonight, etc, but a quick google search revealed a few articles (not that I particularly trust them). Here’s one: (**** the media)


This isn’t where I saw it (ABC), but there’s a number of articles that suggest 2 degrees MAY = 6m sea rise. I notice some say over hundreds of years, some say millennia, others say nothing of time.
I have read articles that scientists ‘may’ have under-estimated the capacity of the oceans to absorb further temperature rises too. That sea height is predicated upon thermal expansion of the oceans as they heat up, but the figure is based on what they estimate the world’s ocean’s capacity is to absorb that heat is, before they start expanding.

And they might have got that wrong.

Which is why the strong opinions climate change discussion produces, amuses me so much. The scientists themselves use the words ‘may, might, perhaps, could...’

And from such indeterminate conclusions, are decisive opinions formed which often result in threats and violence toward others...
 

soup

State of Origin Captain
9,609
7,498
T’ba
I have read articles that scientists ‘may’ have under-estimated the capacity of the oceans to absorb further temperature rises too. That sea height is predicated upon thermal expansion of the oceans as they heat up, but the figure is based on what they estimate the world’s ocean’s capacity is to absorb that heat is, before they start expanding.

And they might have got that wrong.

Which is why the strong opinions climate change discussion produces, amuses me so much. The scientists themselves use the words ‘may, might, perhaps, could...’

And from such indeterminate conclusions, are decisive opinions formed which often result in threats and violence toward others...
Yeah, I was just pointing out a report I casually heard while juggling home shit.
But **** it, let’s biff on eh ;)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top