Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1585961636484

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The guardian reports the IPCC findings as they are presented. Your problem is that you think you know better than the IPCC so any newspaper who reports their findings will always be ‘alarmist’

    Like the climate change deniers playbook reads on page 1, emphasize doubt.

    focus only on the uncertainty and completely ignore the evidence that compels us to act



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Well that's that then. You see no problem with the reporting of that Pentagon report, which was not at all based on IPCC forecasts but because it was as hyperbolic as you are you don't see the problem with it. At least we know where you stand now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    You did nothing wrong, -.98 is a valid correlation and what one would expect from two lines crossing each other in that sort of X-shaped pattern. And the square of the negative correlation is a positive, .96.

    If two things are perfectly correlated the r value would be 1.00 and if they are perfectly opposed in trend, the r value is -1.00. Those are the limits for correlation.

    As I am sure you know, however, correlation does not show causation. Over that same period of time, a graph of the mean temperature vs the popularity of Vladimir Putin or Tony Blair would look about the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    The back and forth about solar heat output have failed to address where the IPCC got the notion that the Sun has been steadily emitting less heat energy since the late 19th century, which appears to be the basis of their claim that over that entire period (not just the last thirty years) the climate should be cooling. With such an active run of solar cycles in the mid to late 20th century, and two long downturns in the 19th century, I had assumed it was the other way around.

    Just looking at a lot of historical weather maps and data, it's hard for me to visualize how anyone familiar with this information could imagine that they were seeing a cooling climate being artificially warmed up, to me it looks more like a sustained natural warming that is slowly being topped up on an increasing basis by the AGW signal. I do agree and have already conceded elsewhere that the ratio is now probably becoming more or even mostly AGW, and the trends since about 2006 look a bit more like the IPCC claimed situation.

    Over a longer period, however, the comparison of 20th century to 19th century looks very much like a natural warming on the same order as was observed from the Maunder to the warmer period of 1720 to 1739. Over-reliance on solar when there is so little fluctuation is a danger that perhaps the events of 1740 might underscore, since there was clearly a very sharp cooling then despite the solar forcing continuing to increase (there had only been three reasonably active solar cycles after the long quiet of the Maunder, when the 1740 event took place, and the temperature trends in Europe did not fully recover afterwards despite a succession of quite strong solar cycles. The record does look highly variable like the 1970s, with frequent alternations of very warm and very cold seasons or months. Maybe when these solar cycles get too strong, it stresses the climate system because much the same thing happened in the mid-20th century, a rather abrupt change from generally warm (1948 to 1961) to more and more variable.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    As I am sure you know, however, correlation does not show causation. Over that same period of time, a graph of the mean temperature vs the popularity of Vladimir Putin or Tony Blair would look about the same - M.T Cranium

    This is true, but given that:

    "Coal is the single biggest contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The burning of coal is responsible for 46% of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide and accounts for 72% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity sector. If plans to build up to 1200 new coal fired power stations around the world are realized, the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from these plants would put us on a path towards catastrophic climate change, causing global temperatures to rise by over five degrees Celsius by 2100. This will have dire impacts for all life on earth".

    End Coal | Climate Change

    I'd not altogether rule out even just the tiniest bit of connection between X & Y either.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I have seen so much deliberate misinformation from the media around climate change, if all you have to say about the guardian is that they don't go out of their way to emphasise the uncertainties in reports, and that they report the findings of the report as they appear in the abstracts and executive summaries of the reports, then already they are in the top 10% of science reporting news publications.

    The Pentagon report was reported exactly as it was, a report by the pentagon, to the climate change denier GW Bush that was specifically looking at the plausible worst case scenario from a National security perspective.

    There are loads of 'skeptical' news reports out there where people come on pretending to be experts to 'analyse' reports by the IPCC and all they do is throw out long debunked challenges to established science

    The Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times, The Telegraph, the Express are all horrific at reporting climate science accurately and they all regularly print blatantly misleading and false stories to downplay the impact of climate change

    Would you prefer such 'analysis' as 'There is a problem with climate change, it stopped in 1998" Telegraph 2006

    or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/01/donald-trump-has-courage-wit-look-green-hysteria-say-no-deal/ (an article so full of lies and misinformation that it was forced to print a retraction by IPSO)


    But as we've already established, Its 'sensible reporting' when papers downplay climate change and deny the results of scientific papers, but it's alarmist to report the findings exactly as presented in the scientific papers as long as they don't also spend most of the article emphasising the uncertainty

    And it doesn't really matter what the science says, because if it says climate change likely to be very harmful, they're by definition wrong because of... your hunch or something

    Gotcha



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    I don't trust ANY news outlet to report ANTYHING accurately, on climate or otherwise. They are all as bad as eachother as far as I'm concerned. I have never classed anything in a paper as "sensible reporting", so unless you can find a quote where I did, your point is wrong. My point is that you class that article as responsible, despite the fact that they never once mentioned that it was not an actual representation of the current consensus, or whatever you want to call it. To a reader reading the article, the impression is given that the scenarios described are totally plausible. I've reposted it word-for-word below, so please outline the bit where they give any context whatsoever to the catastrophes outlined in the report. Of course they don't, because to do wo would dilute the hyperbole.

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

    This article is more than 17 years old

    · Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war

    · Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years

    · Threat to the world is greater than terrorism


    Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..


    secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.


    The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.


    ‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,’ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’


    The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.


    The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.


    An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.


    Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

    Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.


    A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America’s public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.


    One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President’s position on the issue as indefensible.


    Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK’s leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon’s internal fears should prove the ‘tipping point’ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.


    Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: ‘If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.’

    Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored.


    ‘Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It’s going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush’s single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,’ added Watson.


    ‘You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.


    Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.


    Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. ‘This is depressing stuff,’ he said. ‘It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.’

    Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said.


    ‘The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.’

    So dramatic are the report’s scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush’s stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.


    The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry’s cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed ‘Yoda’ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence’s push on ballistic-missile defence.


    Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. ‘It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.’


    Symons said the Bush administration’s close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. ‘This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,’ he added.


    You've read 10 articles in the last year


    Article count

    on

    … we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s high-impact journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million readers, from 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent.

    With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence, offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

    Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

    We aim to offer readers a comprehensive, international perspective on critical events shaping our world – from the Black Lives Matter movement, to the new American administration, Brexit, and the world's slow emergence from a global pandemic. We are committed to upholding our reputation for urgent, powerful reporting on the climate emergency, and made the decision to reject advertising from fossil fuel companies, divest from the oil and gas industries, and set a course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.

    If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Guardian from as little as £1 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The point is that Solar activity absolutely definitely has not been a causal factor in the increasing temperatures we are seeing over the past 50 years because solar activity has not been increasing, it has declined very slightly.

    Neither has there been a change to our orbit or rotational eccentricity, precession or obliquity that could explain the warming, certainly at the rate of changes we're seeing

    Neither has there been an upwelling of heat from deep oceans or any volcanic event that was causing temporary cooling that is precipitating out...

    TLDR, you don't get to just say 'natural variation' as if it is an explanation. Scientists have studied these previous cycles and have found that they do not explain the current warming.

    Whatever about your local weather, Global climate certainly has not become 'more and more variable since 1961, it has become hotter and hotter, decade on decade for the last 60 years. No decade has been colder than the last, and over the past 30-40 years, no single year has been colder than the 30 year average. The closest the 'skeptics' got to declaring the end to climate change was a 10 year 'paused at near record high temperatures, but since all those headlines in 2006, 1998 isn't even in the top 10 hottest years anymore



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    But the Guardian did report on the report accurately. They relayed exactly what was in the report.

    If you don't trust any media outlet to report ANYTHING accurately, how do you know who won the last election?

    Did you personally attend every single count centre and count every vote?

    Or do you mean to say you rely on the primary sources, the science? Well I link to scientific papers a hell of a lot more than I link to the Guardian, In fact I didn't bring up this report, someone else did, and I don't report guardian's reporting on anything except politics, news and current affairs. 99% of the time I directly link to the scientific journal

    You have very strongly alluded to the fact that you do not believe the results of these scientific reports into climate change. So where do you get your evidence from? The same place the flat earther gets theirs? they look out the window and see a flat horizon and think 'that aint round' and then they go and do some 'research' by looking at individual datapoints, and ignoring anything that contradicts their belief, and declaring that all other contradictory sources of data are unreliable and wrong.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    There you go again using the flatearther analogy. Anything to deflect from the topic under discussion. To repeat my point, reporting on a report that was deliberately non-factual without actually mentioning that the report was deliberately non-factual is itself deliberately incomplete and irresponsible. If Banana Republic wrote a report stating that there is no gravity in space and The Guardian reported on it, do you not think they should state that that is not what the scientific consensus says?

    I post scientific data to support my comments on some climate reports or attribution studies. Sometimes it's fairly obvious when a claim is inaccurate or exaggerated, yet if nobody posts evidence to point it out then it may go unchallenged.

    Anyway, I note again that you ignored my request for a source for your claim on climate-deniers and the COVID vaccine. Where did you read about that, the media?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Thanks for posting four media links. I will not be clicking them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1




  • Registered Users Posts: 22,408 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    The report was not ‘deliberately non factual’. It was their assessment of the plausible worst case scenario

    If the guardian was writing articles about what random internet message board posters say, then yes, that would be preposterous, but they deemed the report by the pentagon to the POTUS to be more newsworthy than that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,462 ✭✭✭✭M.T. Cranium


    There is plenty of evidence for increased variability in the 1970s and early 1980s which was my actual point, and it wasn't "local" like outside my house, it was all over the hemisphere. Most actual weather enthusiasts don't need to be reminded of this. I suspect that climate change orthodox true believers just filter out whatever facts do not entirely fit their narrative and don't see any need to know very much about past weather events. Last comment from me here, it simply isn't worth my time to butt heads with those who obviously don't want to learn anything.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    The King Pin bows out.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Plausible, you say. Just to mention some points from the report (2004).

    By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned.

    Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colder and drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

    · Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

    · Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

    · By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F.

    · Europe will face huge internal struggles as it copes with massive numbers of migrants washing up on its shores. Immigrants from Scandinavia seek warmer climes to the south. Southern Europe is beleaguered by refugees from hard-hit countries in Africa.

    Need I say more? The fact that you are still trying to defend both the report itself and the Guardian's reporting of it speaks volumes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    The question marks indicated that I had a question namely what in Jesus sake we’re you on about.

    .. means nothing !



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭Banana Republic 1


    “Need I say more?”

    No just change the record because the one spinning now has long been broken.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    My point exactly, but, as I said before, you regularly use these same two dots in some of your posts.

    To spell it out for you (as spelling isn't your strength), I was replying by saying "Of course I did" (learn something from the links you provided).



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    In other words "Shut up and stop highlighting glaring inaccuracies".



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    Every one of these are nothing more than journalistic opinion pieces dressed up as 'fact'. But what else would you expect from the Banana Bot? 'Trusted' sources telling him how and what to think.

    And I love how the writer in that Guardian piece separates himself from 'the left' by describing himself and those who agree totally with his every opinion as the 'alternative left' (fact check: no such concept exists) In other words making it as they go along. So desperate as they to outwardly project a sort of lefty credibility while not actually being so. Middle/upper middle class twats who take every opportunity to denigrate and slander all those who they think are beneath them.

    Owen Jones, former writer with the Guardian and someone who I am not overly fond of, did write up a great piece a couple of years back on the class backgrounds of most British (and, by proxy, global) journalists.

    "Nothing caused so much anger as my suggestion that the British media is profoundly socially exclusive. The journalists denying this are waging a crusade against undeniable fact, evidence and data — and, by doubling down, are helping to ensure that this profound injustice is not rectified.

    Just 7% of the British population are privately educated. But according to the Sutton Trust in 2016, 51% of Britain’s top journalists are privately educated. Just 19% attended a comprehensive school — unlike nearly 90% of the population.

    According to the ‘Elitist Britain’ report — published by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in 2014, 43% of newspaper columnists are privately educated; just 23% went to comprehensives. Two thirds of new entrants to journalism came from managerial and professional backgrounds: more than twice the level of the rest of the population.

    According to another government study, journalists are second only to doctors when it comes to the dominance of those from professional or managerial parental backgrounds. In other words: journalism is one of the most socially exclusive professions in Britain.

    The issue is not just class. A study in 2016 suggested that 94% of journalists are white and 55% are men. While 5% of Britons are Muslims and 3% are black, just 0.4% of journalists are Muslim and 0.2% are black. Women are paid considerably less, and men dominate senior roles".

    The British media is a closed shop. These are the facts. | by Owen Jones | Medium

    As one lecturer I had put it years ago, and I paraphrase: "the journalistic class are the sentinels of their own social and cultural and political strata and dominance". And how true that proved to be, as anyone who observed the absolute hysterical and insane reaction of the MSM after 'Brexit' was voted in back in 2016 will have observed. The deep hatred of this particular class of people that directed itself towards the 'uneducated' and the 'easily fooled' working classes really exposed them for what they really are: vile, partisan hacks who are nothing more than the mouthpieces of the fat cats who hold all the real power.

    New Moon



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    "But the Guardian did report on the report accurately. They relayed exactly what was in the report". - Akrasia

    But the question here is why did they report on this 'secret (a laughable term) report' in the first place? The Guardian are quick to call out anyone who might 'downplay the climate emergency' and label and smear them as all sorts, but you'll note in those articles posted, there was no calling out or questioning the high level bollox claims that the (very right wing dominated) Pentagon spewed out.

    It's almost as if agenda supersedes principle..

    New Moon



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,235 ✭✭✭Oneiric 3


    ^^ Can't even distinguish between what is "science" and what is politics.

    "However, there is increasing pressure for scientists to prove their worth to society. This means finding, or creating, ways in which their research will “save the world”, and then doing their best to communicate this in the hopes that their funding continues.

    The pressure from a culture of “publish or perish” results in an increase in practices like “spinning” data, or dubious practices like “p-hacking”.

    The danger of overselling science (theconversation.com)

    New Moon



Advertisement