Global Warming

[villakram]

18 hours ago, il_serpente said:

That can't happen.   Conservation of mass and all that.

Mass is not a conserved nor fundamental quantity.

[il_serpente]

35 minutes ago, villakram said:

Mass is not a conserved nor fundamental quantity.

Pedant!

[VILLAMARV]

Quote

The monster Antarctic iceberg A-68 looks finally to be on the move.

For 13 months after breaking away from the White Continent's long peninsula, the trillion-tonne block did little more than shuffle back and forth on the spot. But now its southern end has swung round almost 90 degrees, indicating the berg has been caught in ocean currents. The approaching southern summer should only assist its anticipated slow drift northwards, experts say.

"After more than a year of moving to and fro near its parent ice shelf, iceberg A-68, which calved from the Larsen C Ice Shelf on 12 July 2017, has finally escaped," commented Prof Adrian Luckman from Swansea University, UK. "Until recently, the iceberg was hemmed in by dense sea-ice in the east and shallow waters in the north. Now, a strong foehn wind blowing eastwards off the ice shelf in early September has pushed the southerly end of the iceberg out into the Weddell Gyre. This persistent clockwise drift of ocean waters and floating sea-ice flowing north past the Larsen Ice Shelf has rotated A-68 out into the Weddell Sea. Here, it is much more free to begin moving away and be carried further north into warmer waters."

A-68's pivot-and-spin behaviour is common in large tabular icebergs. Its contact with the seabed will be leaving big gouge marks in the sediment. These troughs should be evident to the sonar surveys that will be conducted by international teams at the turn of the year. Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute will lead one of these scientific cruises, using the Research Vessel Polarstern; the UK's Scott Polar Research Institute will lead the other, run off the icebreaker SA Agulhas II. A-68 has managed to knock off some of its sharp edges over the past year, but its scale remains much the same - roughly 150km long and some 55km wide. Two largish chunks have detached, one of them sufficiently big to get its own designation (A-68b) in the list of giant bergs kept by the US National Ice Center. The American agency has officially now put A-68 at number six in its all-time size ranking. Past history suggests the largest blocks will all eventually be exported on one of the four major "iceberg highways" that lead beyond Antarctica.

In this instance, the fragments should slot into the great circumpolar current that surrounds the continent and head on an eastward arc towards the South Atlantic. The penguins and seals on the British Overseas Territory of South Georgia may well get to see these remnants as they pass by in a few years' time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45421315

[maqroll]

Huge hurricane is bearing down on North Carolina. Expected to dump 40 inches of rain on the coast, as well as the typical storm surge and wind. Not looking good at all.

[Xann]

Reckon the poll numbers would change much if it was run again?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Reckon the poll numbers would change much if it was run again?

I'd guess so. It is nevertheless staggering that when 98% of the scientists looking at climate change believe it is certain it is man made, that the general population (or a sample of it) having less knowledge of the facts only 61% or so have a similar view. There is clearly a failure of media, or success of interested deniers (oil lobby etc.) causing this mismatch. Like you hint, significant events like these succession of super-storms, heatwaves etc. are bound to change the perception.

[VILLAMARV]

This thread started before my time here but it's always made me chuckle that there was even a poll.

This was 8 years ago.

 

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I'd guess so. It is nevertheless staggering that when 98% of the scientists looking at climate change believe it is certain it is man made, that the general population (or a sample of it) having less knowledge of the facts only 61% or so have a similar view. There is clearly a failure of media, or success of interested deniers (oil lobby etc.) causing this mismatch. Like you hint, significant events like these succession of super-storms, heatwaves etc. are bound to change the perception.

based on the recent study that wind farms have contributed to global warming you'd have to vote yes now

of course someone has already come out an debunked that  study whilst insisting they hold the correct and only view but I'll leave that to the scientific community to sort out

 

 

 

 

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

...recent study that wind farms have contributed to global warming you'd have to vote yes now

 of course someone has already come out an debunked that  study whilst insisting they hold the correct and only view but I'll leave that to the scientific community to sort out

I know it's tongue in cheek, but this is the type of (on the face of it) false "confusion" that leads to people being so misinformed. The scientific community and responsible reporting does give the true picture, but it's easy to twist that and partially report and use it in a way to falsely discredit wind power.

[tonyh29]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know it's tongue in cheek, but this is the type of (on the face of it) false "confusion" that leads to people being so misinformed. The scientific community and responsible reporting does give the true picture, but it's easy to twist that and partially report and use it in a way to falsely discredit wind power.

but the twisting of the picture works both ways  , you quoted the 98% of scientist agree stat earlier which has been based around some flawed evidence in it's own right  ..it's closer to 80%  when you study the available data  ... at face value the 98% suggests the 2% are crackpots , 20% is a little harder to dismiss  ..though they could all still be crack pots

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

but the twisting of the picture works both ways  , you quoted the 98% of scientist agree stat earlier which has been based around some flawed evidence in it's own right  ..it's closer to 80%  when you study the available data  ... at face value the 98% suggests the 2% are crackpots , 20% is a little harder to dismiss  ..though they could all still be crack pots

No, That's not so. It's another example. It's nowhere near 20% disagreeing. Obviously different studies will throw up slightly different stats, but it's close to 97 or 98% 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Quote

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate		Advanced
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

 

Climate Myth...There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

 

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Much more on link. Detailed methodology, explanations, all sorts.

[blandy]

or NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Quote

The role of human activity

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years

 

[snowychap]

Deleted as it's not worth bothering.

Edited October 11, 2018 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, That's not so. It's another example. It's nowhere near 20% disagreeing. Obviously different studies will throw up slightly different stats, but it's close to 97 or 98% 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

Much more on link. Detailed methodology, explanations, all sorts.

yeah i've seen that link before , but the study was flawed ,loaded questions if you like  , as per this

The claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming is widely made in climate change literature and by political figures. It has been heavily publicized, often in the form of pie charts, as illustrated by this figure from the

Consensus Project 

of course he could just be one of the 20% ...sorry 2%

[tonyh29]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

or NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

like you'd trust someone that faked moon landings 

 

[tonyh29]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Which study?

This one?

 

possibly ..but as Blandy correctly pointed out , my comment was tongue in cheek rather than any serious contribution

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

yeah i've seen that link before , but the study was flawed ,loaded questions if you like  , as per this

of course he could just be one of the 20% ...sorry 2%

Your man there, on the link

Quote

Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.

He's a lifelong Oil industry bod. His opinion piece generalises and omits. He calls it "fact checking" but it doesn't do that.

Quote

The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here....the nature of committee processes makes it virtually certain that there are varying degrees of agreement

Nevertheless, in terms of the point made earlier - even if his biased opinion were true, it's still >80% of scientists in the field, yet in the general population it's much less.

[chrisp65]

 

[Xann]

God doesn't like Trump either.

[TheAuthority]

Pictures from Florida are incredible. This latest hurricane has absolutely destroyed Mexico Beach.

Edited October 12, 2018 by TheAuthority