Climate Change

[Hacky McAxe]

Another incovenient truth nobody wants to talk about. Amazing how it takes someone like a curious ACDC drummer to form an independent thought.

I guess most of these Climate Scientists were all indoctrintrinated into the same rubbish at the same universities. Makes you wonder how many are actual scientists capable of their own critical analysis, and how many have just read books of other so-called scientists and regurgitated that information.

The COVID scientists all went to the same University too I believe. The majority were all super accurate too with those lockdown recommendations. Anyone remember when they recommended we couldn't eat lunch on a bench seat outside because it was deemed unsafe?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1620179053159530517

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "climate scientists won't say this"

The study in the report he linked was carried out by climate scientists. And they even state in the research that they agree with the IPCC that Antarctica is losing more ice overall. They just point out that in two areas of Antarctica there is an increase in ice. And they point out that the gains will likely reverse due to the trend.

I mean, this article was written in plain English and he still didn't understand it at all. His drug addled brain couldn't understand basic English.

 

[Aristidiz]

Nope. I covered all of that in my post. Read it again.

If it was unchanged over time then it wouldn't be a carbon cycle. Emphasis on the cycle. That's why I put in the whole part about pouring the water out and adding it back in.

Natural climate cycles happen over an extended period of time. And natural carbon cycle happens over a period of time. But this is simple math. When you have CO2 that has been trapped for millions of years and you release a majority of it in less than 200 years, that is no longer a natural cycle. The added effect is cumulative.

And as I said, this is all accounted for and it's stuff that is taught at the rudimentary level. This is why I pointed out his lack of expertise as well. He's arguing that climate science ignores natural cycles. It doesn't though. It's like arguing that mechanics ignore that cars have engines. It's rudimentary stuff. He's either saying it because:

1) he doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about

Or

2) he does know what he's talking about but he's using stupid arguments because he knows those who didn't study climate science won't know his arguments are stupid

Or maybe he simply highlighting the fact that most scientists are over-stating the impact of man-made CO2 on the climate, largely because it is currently at its lowest levels in a long long long time.

CO2 will rise and fall regardless of whether humans on are on this planet or not. You keep referring to 'natural cycles' and inside and outside 'forces' but what you seem to forget is that humans are natural to this planet too.

Civilsiation as we know it will need to completely change to achieve this Net Zero pipe dream.

 

[Aristidiz]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "climate scientists won't say this"

The study in the report he linked was carried out by climate scientists. And they even state in the research that they agree with the IPCC that Antarctica is losing more ice overall. They just point out that in two areas of Antarctica there is an increase in ice. And they point out that the gains will likely reverse due to the trend.

I mean, this article was written in plain English and he still didn't understand it at all. His drug addled brain couldn't understand basic English.

He is referring to the tunnel vision of most climate scientists.

Again you have missed his point entirely.

He has posted the article to highlight that there are literally mass expanses of ice growing in size, yet this is being completely forgotten amidst the climate warming hysteria. Other parts are reducing in size, great, nobody is denying this.

Why you are so triggered by this article is what you should ask yourself.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Or maybe he simply highlighting the fact that most scientists are over-stating the impact of man-made CO2 on the climate, largely because it is currently at its lowest levels in a long long long time.

CO2 will rise and fall regardless of whether humans on are on this planet or not. You keep referring to 'natural cycles' and inside and outside 'forces' but what you seem to forget is that humans are natural to this planet too.

Civilsiation as we know it will need to completely change to achieve this Net Zero pipe dream.

It's not the "lowest it's been in a long time" though. CO2 concentrations are much higher than its been in a long time. Human effect on CO2 is quite easily trackable. The temperature changes are quick easily trackable with modern technology. Denial of the effects of human induced climate change actually requires you to ignore all technological advancement humans have made.

All that aside, Clack is literally arguing that you should ignore the experts because only he is right. Can you imagine if you lived life that way?

Think about it from another angle. What if your doctor told you that you have a brain tumour and need surgery, but your hairdresser told you that they looked at the way your hair is growing and they don't think you need surgery. Smoke pours out of your car. Your mechanic tells you that you engine will die soon. But a guy sitting in the bus shelter across the road tells you that there's nothing wrong with your car and that the smoke is the car cleansing itself of bad spirits.

I know this sounds ridiculous and I know you have attached yourself to Clack's rants, but this is literally what is happening. A guy who probably didn't finish high school is telling you that the experts are wrong, and you're not questioning the logic of that. You're just agreeing with him.

It makes no sense.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

He is referring to the tunnel vision of most climate scientists.

Again you have missed his point entirely.

He has posted the article to highlight that there are literally mass expanses of ice growing in size, yet this is being completely forgotten amidst the climate warming hysteria. Other parts are reducing in size, great, nobody is denying this.

Why you are so triggered by this article is what you should ask yourself.

It's not though. The leading source of data for climate change research in the US is the ones that gather the data on climate change. And you know who that is.... It's NASA. And who did he reference... NASA.

He's posting a NASA article and saying, "NASA won't look at this article from NASA"

Seriously. The bloke's brain is completely gone. I wouldn't use him as a source of information for anything.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Seriously. Just look at the stuff this guy posts. Look at his pinned tweet. He's saying that everything we know about fossil fuels is wrong. That Geology is wrong. That science in general is wrong. This is some of the most unscientific stuff you can come up with.

If you want to know how to score the best drugs or bang the best chicks, talk to a drummer. If you're looking to understand complex systems... Don't go to this bloke.

 

[Aristidiz]

It's not the "lowest it's been in a long time" though. CO2 concentrations are much higher than its been in a long time. Human effect on CO2 is quite easily trackable. The temperature changes are quick easily trackable with modern technology. Denial of the effects of human induced climate change actually requires you to ignore all technological advancement humans have made.

All that aside, Clack is literally arguing that you should ignore the experts because only he is right. Can you imagine if you lived life that way?

Think about it from another angle. What if your doctor told you that you have a brain tumour and need surgery, but your hairdresser told you that they looked at the way your hair is growing and they don't think you need surgery. Smoke pours out of your car. Your mechanic tells you that you engine will die soon. But a guy sitting in the bus shelter across the road tells you that there's nothing wrong with your car and that the smoke is the car cleansing itself of bad spirits.

I know this sounds ridiculous and I know you have attached yourself to Clack's rants, but this is literally what is happening. A guy who probably didn't finish high school is telling you that the experts are wrong, and you're not questioning the logic of that. You're just agreeing with him.

It makes no sense.

Again your post is most part analogy which I won't bother addressing.

CO2 at the moment is what 440 ppm? It has been over 3000 ppm previously. So yes much higher.

Its not just Clack highlighting this type of information, he is just the minority.

Just like the minority were highlighting that the COVID lockdown measures you simply accepted were necesssary for the good of mankind.

If you can't see the parallel, I can't help you.

 

[Aristidiz]

It's not though. The leading source of data for climate change research in the US is the ones that gather the data on climate change. And you know who that is.... It's NASA. And who did he reference... NASA.

He's posting a NASA article and saying, "NASA won't look at this article from NASA"

Seriously. The bloke's brain is completely gone. I wouldn't use him as a source of information for anything.

Wow, I am not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the point being made or?

Fact: Ice Sheets are growing.
Fact: Other Ice Sheets are shrinking.
Fact: Ice comes and goes over time and always returns over time.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Again your post is most part analogy which I won't bother addressing.

CO2 at the moment is what 440 ppm? It has been over 3000 ppm previously. So yes much higher.

Its not just Clack highlighting this type of information, he is just the minority.

Just like the minority were highlighting that the COVID lockdown measures you simply accepted were necesssary for the good of mankind.

If you can't see the parallel, I can't help you.

Yep. CO2 changes over time. Again, natural carbon cycles. And here's how the CO2 levels have changed over time. Notice the spike and trajectory?

And there are others who say the same as Clack. But statistics are important.

Ove 99% of climate scientists agree that man induced climate change is a major problem. Of the tiny minority that don't agree, 99% of them are funded by fossil fuel companies. A huge conflict of interest. And there are climate scientists that are funded by renewable companies. But only a small percentage of that 99+%

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Wow, I am not sure if you are intentionally ignoring the point being made or?

Fact: Ice Sheets are growing.
Fact: Other Ice Sheets are shrinking.
Fact: Ice comes and goes over time and always returns over time.

Nope. Not missing anything at all. Just pointing out how stupid it is to say, "climate scientists are ignoring this" while also showing an article written by climate scientists. Just really doesn't make sense.

Also, that was one study and every subsequent study didn't agree with it. Again. Comes back to that 99%+ factor. Probability dictates that the 99% are more likely to be right than the less than 1%

Why this 2015 NASA study is beloved by climate change skeptics

The findings of the controversial study flew in the face of past research on ice gains in Antarctica.

bigthink.com

• A 2015 NASA study caused major controversy by claiming that Antarctica was gaining more ice than it was losing.
• The study said that ice gains in East Antarctica were effectively canceling out ice losses in the western region of the continent.
• Since 2015, multiple studies have shown that Antarctica is losing more ice than it's gaining, though the 2015 study remains a favorite of climate change doubters to this day

 

[Hacky McAxe]

There's a reason climate deniers like Clack are referencing an 8 year old study.

 

[TwinTurbo]

There's a reason climate deniers like Clack are referencing an 8 year old study.

I’m not going to dwell on this for too long but I feel the compulsion to point out some facts. Antarctic sea ice in unconstrained, it breaks off and floats with the prevailing winds, then new ice forms behind it, thus increasing the measured Antarctic ice. The NASA study in 2015 was after a period of westerly prevailing winds, hence the western side ice increasing and the eastern side ice decreasing.

Since 2015, at the insistence of the IPCC, the Antarctic ice measurements have eliminated ice in fill created by prevailing winds. Of course they don’t allow for the ice floats constrained by the prevailing winds on the opposite side. In simple terms eliminate the positives whilst ignoring the negatives.

This is not the first measurement (or projection) that the IPCC have objected against, because to be frank, they didn’t like the results. Or perhaps more accurately the results didn’t agree with the IPCC funded projections and therefore the actual results must be wrong and have to be adjusted.

We must keep in mind that whilst NASA may well carry out the measurements what they measure is determined by the IPCC. So when someone says “they are NASA measurements so they must be right“ what can not be ignored is that NASA aren’t “climate scientists“ and they measure what they are told to measure. Perhaps more accurately they measure what they are funded to measure. Conversely they don’t measure what they don’t know about and/or aren’t funded to measure.

Yes, there is reason why Clark and others quote the 2015 NASA findings, because they were last ones not affected by the IPCC demands to eliminate the effects of prevailing winds.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I’m not going to dwell on this for too long but I feel the compulsion to point out some facts. Antarctic sea ice in unconstrained, it breaks off and floats with the prevailing winds, then new ice forms behind it, thus increasing the measured Antarctic ice. The NASA study in 2015 was after a period of westerly prevailing winds, hence the western side ice increasing and the eastern side ice decreasing.

Since 2015, at the insistence of the IPCC, the Antarctic ice measurements have eliminated ice in fill created by prevailing winds. Of course they don’t allow for the ice floats constrained by the prevailing winds on the opposite side. In simple terms eliminate the positives whilst ignoring the negatives.

This is not the first measurement (or projection) that the IPCC have objected against, because to be frank, they didn’t like the results. Or perhaps more accurately the results didn’t agree with the IPCC funded projections and therefore the actual results must be wrong and have to be adjusted.

We must keep in mind that whilst NASA may well carry out the measurements what they measure is determined by the IPCC. So when someone says “they are NASA measurements so they must be right“ what can not be ignored is that NASA aren’t “climate scientists“ and they measure what they are told to measure. Perhaps more accurately they measure what they are funded to measure. Conversely they don’t measure what they don’t know about and/or aren’t funded to measure.

Yes, there is reason why Clark and others quote the 2015 NASA findings, because they were last ones not affected by the IPCC demands to eliminate the effects of prevailing winds.


Always a Bulldog

Do you have evidence IPCC objected against those measurements?

All I could find was that some scientists criticised the calibration method (calibrated the lasers using water as a flat surface, without checking if that water was actually still) and critique of the study claiming its ice when there was no way to tell if its ice or snow.

Which makes sense. If the measurement method is wrong then you're going to get bad results.

 

[TwinTurbo]

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3-2/

This paper is long and almost unintelligible in many places, one of my favourites;

The considerable Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) inter-model variations in Southern Ocean time-mean circulation projections reported in WGI AR5 (Meijers et al., 2012; Downes and Hogg, 2013) remain largely unchanged. Some of the differences in projected changes have been found to be correlated with biases in the various models’ ability to simulate the historical state of the Southern Ocean, such as mixed layer depth (Sallée et al., 2013a) and westerly wind jet latitude (Bracegirdle et al., 2013). This suggests that bias reduction against observed historical metrics (Russell et al., 2018) in future generations of coupled models (e.g., Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)) should lead to improved confidence in aspects of projected Southern Ocean changes. .............. There are systematic biases in modelled ocean stratification resulting in low confidence in future Weddell Polynya projections (Reintges et al., 2017).

What the the IPCC admits above is that its models (and/or models from climate scientists that they utilise) are biased and strangely (or maybe no so strangely) they almost always biased to a more extreme level of climate change.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3-2/

This paper is long and almost unintelligible in many places, one of my favourites;

The considerable Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) inter-model variations in Southern Ocean time-mean circulation projections reported in WGI AR5 (Meijers et al., 2012; Downes and Hogg, 2013) remain largely unchanged. Some of the differences in projected changes have been found to be correlated with biases in the various models’ ability to simulate the historical state of the Southern Ocean, such as mixed layer depth (Sallée et al., 2013a) and westerly wind jet latitude (Bracegirdle et al., 2013). This suggests that bias reduction against observed historical metrics (Russell et al., 2018) in future generations of coupled models (e.g., Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)) should lead to improved confidence in aspects of projected Southern Ocean changes. .............. There are systematic biases in modelled ocean stratification resulting in low confidence in future Weddell Polynya projections (Reintges et al., 2017).

What the the IPCC admits above is that its models (and/or models from climate scientists that they utilise) are biased and strangely (or maybe no so strangely) they almost always biased to a more extreme level of climate change.


Always a Bulldog

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

In data science you have bias and variance. This happens because models are often too simple or too complex for the data inserted into the model, and there's variation based on the various data sources.

Bias isn't something that's added to a model. It's an effect that happens when the model can't be refined enough. You attempt to minimise bias but increasing or reducing the complexity of the model to provide more accurate data.

In this case the IPCC is saying that there's bias in the data modelling resulting in inaccurate data. So adjustments are made to reduce that bias using available allowance for variance while attempting to avoid increasing the bias in other aspects.

Anyone who has modelled data on scale knows how difficult it is to avoid high bias in modelling.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Do you have evidence IPCC objected against those measurements?

All I could find was that some scientists criticised the calibration method (calibrated the lasers using water as a flat surface, without checking if that water was actually still) and critique of the study claiming its ice when there was no way to tell if its ice or snow.

Which makes sense. If the measurement method is wrong then you're going to get bad results.

Us mere mortals would assume that measurements are precisely that, for example get a ruler and measure, say, a 1 metre long piece of timber. Not so in the case of the IPCC and climate, firstly the "ruler" has to be calibrated so that it measures in a particular way, a way that aligns with the way that their models measure.

Secondly what it is measuring is then adjusted for "other factors" which they claim to be necessary to eliminate short term factors. In the simple case of the timber that means allowing for temperature, humidity, out of square etc etc. In the IPCC's case that means allowing for short term weather (eg; wind direction etc) and other factors (eg; volcanic eruptions etc). In the case of climate measurement that involves thousands of other factors that have to be eliminated from or adjusted for the actual measurements. In the models those factors are not absolute, hence why they are called biases by the IPCC.

There are the measurements themselves and then there are measurements adjusted for "other factors", what the IPC publishes and promotes are the adjusted measurements.

In your example of ice versus snow, there has always been an issue with measuring which is ice and which is snow. But because the results didn't turn out the way the IPCC wanted them to in 2015 they have insisted that subsequent measurements allow for a distinction. One that previously wasn't allowed for. Does anyone really find it strange that as result the Antarctic ice is now "measures" less than it did previously.


Always a Bulldog

 

[south of heaven]

I think she has foetal alcohol syndrome.

View attachment 64332

Fuck I'm dead ,and I think you are right my sides are hurting

 

[south of heaven]

Anyone's balls sweating more than usual?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Us mere mortals would assume that measurements are precisely that, for example get a ruler and measure, say, a 1 metre long piece of timber. Not so in the case of the IPCC and climate, firstly the "ruler" has to be calibrated so that it measures in a particular way, a way that aligns with the way that their models measure.

Secondly what it is measuring is then adjusted for "other factors" which they claim to be necessary to eliminate short term factors. In the simple case of the timber that means allowing for temperature, humidity, out of square etc etc. In the IPCC's case that means allowing for short term weather (eg; wind direction etc) and other factors (eg; volcanic eruptions etc). In the case of climate measurement that involves thousands of other factors that have to be eliminated from or adjusted for the actual measurements. In the models those factors are not absolute, hence why they are called biases by the IPCC.

There are the measurements themselves and then there are measurements adjusted for "other factors", what the IPC publishes and promotes are the adjusted measurements.

In your example of ice versus snow, there has always been an issue with measuring which is ice and which is snow. But because the results didn't turn out the way the IPCC wanted them to in 2015 they have insisted that subsequent measurements allow for a distinction. One that previously wasn't allowed for. Does anyone really find it strange that as result the Antarctic ice is now "measures" less than it did previously.


Always a Bulldog

That's not accurate. You're taking something unavoidable (model bias) and claiming the IPCC is doing it deliberately (chosen bias)

It's the opposite way around. The IPCC adjusts factors to avoid incorrect data. An example being in the excerpt you shared. Different measurements and models used early on had a higher bias resulting in less accurate projections.

Take your ruler example. It's more like if you're trying to measure the volume of the water in a deep tank using only cloth tape measure and you're on a boat during a storm. And you have to compare it to earlier measurements that were done blindfolded.

The IPCC literally says it in the excerpt you provided. Bias reduction will lead to more accurate projections.

You're seeing the shadows of a tree and thinking it's a monster.

 

[Flanagun]

This blokes claim to fame is that he played drums for ACDC for less than a year.

It's a shame he didn't stick with the band. He'd have plenty of opportunity to attain more degrees from google university on his phone while playing Acadaca drum beats.