Pessimistic about climate

[foenix]

Thankfully ocean temperatures are falling. (especially recently). Some experts say we are looking forward to 7 years of La Nina. Just another cycle.

This is the same misleading statement like what you and Glacier made about global temperatures. You guys took a small section of the temperature curve after recording the highest average temperature for that year. Of course compared to the record year, other years will probably be lower than that particular year..........but what's left out is that in the short term cooling trend compared to the hottest year, is that those "cooling" years are still higher than normal and since the 1970's have increasingly gotten hotter.

It's the same logic here with ocean temperatures, if one looked at certain portion of the long term ocean temperature graph, it's just a short yerm variation in a graph that has the ocean temperature increasing overall. It's akin to a stock market graph, yes there are short term downward trends within an overall upward trend.

Here's the long term ocean temp trend.......

ocean_heat_content.gif

......and here's the short term cooling trend inside the long term increasing ocean temperature.......

loehles_ocean_heat.gif

In climate discussions, the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming.

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree over short periods. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.

https://skepticalscience.com/cooling-oc ... ediate.htm

[foenix]

minarcticsie.jpg.jpeg

This is the same logic as above, one is just looking at short term increase in ice coverage that part of an overall decrease in ice coverage........corresponds to the same years in which the global ocean temperature are in a short term deline, no?........but unfortunately, the overall trend is loss of ice.

[foenix]

Every expert world-wide acknowledges the GBR has rebounded, but is it record breaking? The multiple charts show separate areas of the GBR but you have to mathematically add the charts together to see the over-all trend.

Looks like to me Rudd is guilty of the same hyperbole and misleading statements he accuse his critics of because it sure doesn't look like it's "record breaking", although he tries to stretch his graph like it is.

In his article, Ridd also claims that scientists “generally downplayed or ignored” the reefs capacity to recover from bleaching or extreme weather events, however, scientific studies on coral reefs acknowledge the capability for the reefs to recover and grow after such events[7-9]. Doing so, Ridd neglects to address the complexity of the coral reef diversity, species dynamics and differences around the globe, and misleads the reader into thinking scientists ignore these facts.

As discussed in the AIMS report, the main hypothesis for the rapid recovery of the Great Barrier reefs during 2021 is that “2021 has been a low disturbance year”, and that a strong increase in fast growing Acropora corals created a shift in the population distribution of coral. These species easily colonize new territory and grow quickly, but they are also more susceptible to wave damage, coral bleaching, and predators, meaning that even if coral cover increases, the reef has not totally recovered from the last bleaching events............

Numerous scientific studies show a decrease, not an increase, in coral growth over the past decade. International scientific organizations are not ignoring the improvement in coral communities, and acknowledge the influence of periods with low disturbance on the ability of damaged reefs to recover.

Here's Rudd's graph which is based on the other 3 graphs......how is it record breaking when all three graph of the 3 different areas are only around the 1985 coral coverage?

AIMS-coral-reef-ridd.png

[Jlabute]

Here's Rudd's graph which is based on the other 3 graphs......how is it record breaking when all three graph of the 3 different areas are only around the 1985 coral coverage?

It is record breaking because Peter Ridd's chart (which is the sum of the three charts) at 2020 is greater than 1986.

[Jlabute]

This is the same logic as above, one is just looking at short term increase in ice coverage that part of an overall decrease in ice coverage........corresponds to the same years in which the global ocean temperature are in a short term decline, no?........but unfortunately, the overall trend is loss of ice.

The minimum ice extent increase occurs over 15 years. During this time, the earth has been "ON FIRE" and CO2 was increasing. There is no reason why arctic ice can increase because the trend is in a linear slide down to nothing, isn't it? That's the problem with 'CO2 is the main control knob' belief, you believe rise in CO2 causes everything, then find a way to explain away everything that contradicts it believable or not.

Antarctica just broke record cold temperatures with a winter average of -61.6c. The previous record was -60.6°C in 1976. Quite contradictory for an overheating planet. These intensely cold waters sink to the bottom and drift northward recirculating in the north Atlantic waters which is a cycle that can take 200 years. Todays climate is a combination of numerous cycles. After the last ice age, climate has been hotter than it is today, the oceans 5' higher than today, yet the arctic ice did not disappear.

From 1902 to 1940 arctic ice was decreasing. 1941 to 1980 ice was increasing. 1980 on it was decreasing. Unfortunately we only have a very tiny window of accurate data. Perhaps arctic sea ice was low during the Roman, medieval, and Minoan warm periods? After all, there are paths and tools found under modern glaciers today. The over-all trend if you look at a longer time period are cycles of increasing and decreasing... not loss.

Wanting to spend trillions based on unknowns, bad models, and short-sighted linear thinking is extremely poor policy.

[foenix]

Here's Rudd's graph which is based on the other 3 graphs......how is it record breaking when all three graph of the 3 different areas are only around the 1985 coral coverage?

It is record breaking because Peter Ridd's chart (which is the sum of the three charts) at 2020 is greater than 1986.

How can the sum be greater when the other 3 charts don't indicate "record breaking" levels? That's called sleight of hand voodoo statistics (made up).

[fluffy]

Interesting little listen from CBC Radio this past weekend, a tenured professor with a PhD in Climate Science talks about teaching students about the seriousness of our current situation and then turning them loose into a world where it's business as usual. About a nine minute listen.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1- ... -professor

[rustled]

Interesting little listen from CBC Radio this past weekend, a tenured professor with a PhD in Climate Science talks about teaching students about the seriousness of our current situation and then turning them loose into a world where it's business as usual. About a nine minute listen.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1- ... -professor

Up until a few weeks ago, Heather Short was a tenured professor at a Montreal college where she spent more than a decade educating students about climate change. But this year, Short found herself feeling as though her work — which left her students with a great deal of anxiety and few solutions about their futures — might be doing them more harm than good. She resigned and wrote about the need for a more climate-literate education system for CBC First Person.

Listening, I heard hubris and cognitive dissonance.

It's about time teachers started seriously considering the anxiety and mental health impacts of what they are engaged in. It was interesting to me that she still seemed to be shielding herself against truly acknowledging her own part in having done more harm than good.

Institutions should be hard to change. She doesn't "get" why that is. She also doesn't seem to understand why (outside of some of the more extreme religious doctrines) traumatizing children - in this case, traumatizing them to the extent that she thinks they need mental health supports to deal with what they're being exposed to in school - is not generally considered a useful tactic in building community.

[Jlabute]

Interesting little listen from CBC Radio this past weekend, a tenured professor with a PhD in Climate Science talks about teaching students about the seriousness of our current situation and then turning them loose into a world where it's business as usual. About a nine minute listen.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1- ... -professor

Up until a few weeks ago, Heather Short was a tenured professor at a Montreal college where she spent more than a decade educating students about climate change. But this year, Short found herself feeling as though her work — which left her students with a great deal of anxiety and few solutions about their futures — might be doing them more harm than good. She resigned and wrote about the need for a more climate-literate education system for CBC First Person.

Listening, I heard hubris and cognitive dissonance.

It's about time teachers started seriously considering the anxiety and mental health impacts of what they are engaged in. It was interesting to me that she still seemed to be shielding herself against truly acknowledging her own part in having done more harm than good.

Institutions should be hard to change. She doesn't "get" why that is. She also doesn't seem to understand why (outside of some of the more extreme religious doctrines) traumatizing children - in this case, traumatizing them to the extent that she thinks they need mental health supports to deal with what they're being exposed to in school - is not generally considered a useful tactic in building community.

Same way I saw her.

[Jlabute]

Interesting little listen from CBC Radio this past weekend, a tenured professor with a PhD in Climate Science talks about teaching students about the seriousness of our current situation and then turning them loose into a world where it's business as usual. About a nine minute listen.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1- ... -professor

It is a little listen. The thing about CBC is they are biased. They will only ever show one side of an story. So this college professor was tired of giving her students the same old scary narrative. She quits, then gives the scary narrative on CBC radio. No science supports the climate crisis, nor does the IPCC agree. You can count on some to teach it and the CBC to broadcast it even if it causes young people to needlessly stress out and kill themselves. This 9 minute listen is not about climate, it is about how one person has the hope of indoctrinating, scaring, and profoundly changing the lives of more kids according to their own belief. No science information is in this show.

[fluffy]

It is a little listen. The thing about CBC is they are biased. They will only ever show one side of an story. So this college professor was tired of giving her students the same old scary narrative. She quits, then gives the scary narrative on CBC radio. No science supports the climate crisis, nor does the IPCC agree. You can count on some to teach it and the CBC to broadcast it even if it causes young people to needlessly stress out and kill themselves. This 9 minute listen is not about climate, it is about how one person has the hope of indoctrinating, scaring, and profoundly changing the lives of more kids according to their own belief. No science information is in this show.

A PhD in climate science carries some weight. As do her statements that denial is a common reaction among those not wanting to face the evidence that grows in plain sight daily, let alone the evidence that exists beyond plain sight like ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice.

[Jlabute]

It is a little listen. The thing about CBC is they are biased. They will only ever show one side of an story. So this college professor was tired of giving her students the same old scary narrative. She quits, then gives the scary narrative on CBC radio. No science supports the climate crisis, nor does the IPCC agree. You can count on some to teach it and the CBC to broadcast it even if it causes young people to needlessly stress out and kill themselves. This 9 minute listen is not about climate, it is about how one person has the hope of indoctrinating, scaring, and profoundly changing the lives of more kids according to their own belief. No science information is in this show.

A PhD in climate science carries some weight. As do her statements that denial is a common reaction among those not wanting to face the evidence that grows in plain sight daily, let alone the evidence that exists beyond plain sight like ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice.

The oceans are strongly alkaline, not acidic. Arctic ice has grown over the last 15 years and Antarctic ice is also growing. Denial is a common reaction to overwhelmingly stupid ideas that only fit a political narrative. Her PhD doesn't carry any weight in climate science. I've never seen her name on any research papers. I can only assume she is small potatoes in the combined scientific understanding of climate. Still, we know little in regards to climate since climate deals with numerous long cycles and we've only captured some accurate data over a few decades. The physics of how climate works is barely scratched. That is one reason models are completely wrong.

[rustled]

Interesting little listen from CBC Radio this past weekend, a tenured professor with a PhD in Climate Science talks about teaching students about the seriousness of our current situation and then turning them loose into a world where it's business as usual. About a nine minute listen.

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1- ... -professor

It is a little listen. The thing about CBC is they are biased. They will only ever show one side of an story. So this college professor was tired of giving her students the same old scary narrative. She quits, then gives the scary narrative on CBC radio. No science supports the climate crisis, nor does the IPCC agree. You can count on some to teach it and the CBC to broadcast it even if it causes young people to needlessly stress out and kill themselves. This 9 minute listen is not about climate, it is about how one person has the hope of indoctrinating, scaring, and profoundly changing the lives of more kids according to their own belief. No science information is in this show.

I found it disappointing but unsurprising the CBC commentator - a parent - didn't question the narrative.

She didn't seem even remotely interested in how the objectives of this PhD, and countless other teachers, have negatively impacted the mental health of children like her own.

[rustled]

It is a little listen. The thing about CBC is they are biased. They will only ever show one side of an story. So this college professor was tired of giving her students the same old scary narrative. She quits, then gives the scary narrative on CBC radio. No science supports the climate crisis, nor does the IPCC agree. You can count on some to teach it and the CBC to broadcast it even if it causes young people to needlessly stress out and kill themselves. This 9 minute listen is not about climate, it is about how one person has the hope of indoctrinating, scaring, and profoundly changing the lives of more kids according to their own belief. No science information is in this show.

A PhD in climate science carries some weight. As do her statements that denial is a common reaction among those not wanting to face the evidence that grows in plain sight daily, let alone the evidence that exists beyond plain sight like ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice.

Regardless of her credentials, she seems to be in denial about the part she has played in traumatizing children to the point they need greater mental health supports. One would think someone with a PhD would be better at applying her critical thinking skills and looking at the bigger picture.

[foenix]

A PhD in climate science carries some weight. As do her statements that denial is a common reaction among those not wanting to face the evidence that grows in plain sight daily, let alone the evidence that exists beyond plain sight like ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice.

The ocean is strongly alkaline, not acidic. Arctic ice has grown over the last 15 years and Antarctic ice is also growing. Denial is a common reaction and includes overwhelmingly stupid ideas that only fit a political narrative. Her PhD doesn't carry any weight in climate science. I've never seen her name on any research papers. I can only assume she is small potatoes in the combined scientific understanding of climate. Still, we know little in regards to climate since climate deals with numerous long cycles and we've only captured some accurate data over a few decades. The physics of how climate works is barely scratched. That is one reason models are completely wrong.

Sure the Ocean ph is somewhere around 8 on the ph scale of 0 to 14 but as it absorbes more CO2 from the atmosphere, it becomes less alkaline.....

In the 200-plus years since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to human actions. During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. This might not sound like much, but the pH scale is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource ... dification

Arctic ice isn't growing relative to what it used to be pre 1980 and before that, there isn't really any reliable data to say one way or the other besides the eyeball observation from whalers and such. Since then, the ice coverage in the Arctic has steadily declined.....sure there are short term variation in that as the graph will show but the overall trend is a negative ice coverage.

A.jpeg

.....but nice try in looking a 15 year period where there appears to be a very very slight rise ice coverage but look at the slope on that graph......that's call a negative slope in ice coverage for the Arctic....ie, overall trend in negative ice coverage.

As far as climate models goes, yeah it's still in it's infancy but that's not to say that all the models are wrong. It's the best we've got with the data that's been measured. I'm sure the models will get more accurate as we gather more data......that's how science works.

Since the world can’t afford to wait decades to measure the accuracy of climate model predictions, scientists test a model’s accuracy using past events. If the model accurately predicts past events that we know happened, then it should be pretty good at predicting the future, too. And the more we learn about past and present conditions, the more accurate these models become.

Climate models are complex because of the all the elements that are in flux within Earth’s systems. If our atmosphere was like the moon’s, climate modeling would be fairly easy because the moon barely has an atmosphere. On Earth, climate scientists must account for temperature fluctuations, wind patterns, ocean currents, land surface characteristics and much more. Because of this, the models always consider some level of uncertainty – but models measuring smaller areas with higher resolutions produce more accurate models. Despite a small amount of uncertainty, scientists find climate models of the 21st century to be pretty accurate because they are based on well-founded physical principles of earth system processes. This basis solidifies the confidence of the scientific community that human emissions are changing the climate, which will impact the entire planet.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/ ... -accuracy/

Here's an example of a model, with and without industrial revolution's influence on global temperature.

b.png