Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[Randy Winkman]

Nomme de Plum said:

J210 said:

So it appears the Tuvalu islands that the UN and others said was at an exponential threat of sinking due to climate change. Is actually growing….

Interesting thread on all the times the so called experts have been wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/180634171382637...

Did you ever ask yourself how this maybe?

For instance Holland has increased its land mass extensively >15% though construction of barriers to hold out the sea. It does not however prevent them from being exposed to the regained land being submerged should sea levels rise sufficiently.

I dont claim to know the truth but Wiki says the island is growing at the same time the sea level is rising. But either way, the fella in that link gets a chance to advertise his book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Tu...

[wc98]

Nomme de Plum said:

J210 said:

So it appears the Tuvalu islands that the UN and others said was at an exponential threat of sinking due to climate change. Is actually growing….

Interesting thread on all the times the so called experts have been wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/180634171382637...

Did you ever ask yourself how this maybe?

For instance Holland has increased its land mass extensively >15% though construction of barriers to hold out the sea. It does not however prevent them from being exposed to the regained land being submerged should sea levels rise sufficiently.

I posted about the above fairly recently. I hope you aren't suggesting man made structure is responsible for the islands growing Nick ?

To be fair i know there is a fair bit parroting on here by people that can't be bothered to look up how things work in the natural world but if people took the time to understand how these types of Islands were formed in the first place and looked at the rate of sea level rise (genuine rise, not sinking land mass) it would become quite clear that without some type of catastrophic event it was unlikely they would be disappearing under the waves any time soon, or even not so soon.

[Nomme de Plum]

wc98 said:

Nomme de Plum said:

J210 said:

So it appears the Tuvalu islands that the UN and others said was at an exponential threat of sinking due to climate change. Is actually growing….

Interesting thread on all the times the so called experts have been wrong


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/180634171382637...

Did you ever ask yourself how this maybe?

For instance Holland has increased its land mass extensively >15% though construction of barriers to hold out the sea. It does not however prevent them from being exposed to the regained land being submerged should sea levels rise sufficiently.

I posted about the above fairly recently. I hope you aren't suggesting man made structure is responsible for the islands growing Nick ?

To be fair i know there is a fair bit parroting on here by people that can't be bothered to look up how things work in the natural world but if people took the time to understand how these types of Islands were formed in the first place and looked at the rate of sea level rise (genuine rise, not sinking land mass) it would become quite clear that without some type of catastrophic event it was unlikely they would be disappearing under the waves any time soon, or even not so soon.

No which is why i made no such assertion.

The two things are not mutually exclusive are they? It is quite possible the earths crust has pushed the land mass up slightly and may or maynot continue to so do. Simultaneously sea levels can rise. The problem will be when the latter overtakes the former and if the weather patterns change in the way we are seeing now where the extremes are getting more extreme and more often. It is quite possible for the sea to overtop the shoreline just from storm surge combined with a low pressure event. I know this as we get them where I live and it is becoming a major headache for the coastal partnership. Of course we all pay for the uprating of sea defences and the clear up of the potentially self inflicted damage.

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Thursday 27th June 21:38

[turbobloke]

The mechanism by which coral attols grow and remain above sea level has been known for a long time. When waves overwash such islands during storms, new sediment from the surrounding coral reefs is deposited on the island, increasing area and elevation. Higher sea levels thousands of years ago aided island formation - Maldivian rim islands formed under higher sea levels than we have at present

A few years back at the time of a political stunt related to this topic I posted the results of Kench et al which found a net increase of land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (3%), despite modest sea-level rise, alongside land area increase in eight of nine atolls (1971-2014). Ir can take an island atoll situated in a subduction zone to cause problems.

This inversion of reality ^ clearly isn't confined to pretending extreme weather is associated with warming, when global cooling has been known as the cause for many years before The Cause existed.

[johnboy1975]

Is it just a wild coincidence that the hottest place in the UK on Wednesday was Heathrow?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/j...

(These twitter users think not. Talk of aeroplanes, concrete and tarmac. Heathens )

https://x.com/BohemianAtmosp1/status/1806093710406...

Me? I'm open to persuasion. What readings did we get from similar locations? TB deffo in the heathen camp

[durbster]

johnboy1975 said:

Is it just a wild coincidence that the hottest place in the UK on Wednesday was Heathrow?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/j...

(These twitter users think not. Talk of aeroplanes, concrete and tarmac. Heathens )

https://x.com/BohemianAtmosp1/status/1806093710406...

Me? I'm open to persuasion. What readings did we get from similar locations? TB deffo in the heathen camp

Why would it need to be a coincidence?

It tends to get warmer inland and in built-up areas, and big expanses of tarmac will be warmer still, so it makes sense that an airport in a large, inland city would have warmer air than other places. I had a look at the data few years ago and Heathrow has a slightly higher average than other stations around it but it's not always the warmest.

I don't think planes come into it - I doubt the readings would change when planes are grounded but feel free to check. The data is freely available to anyone who wants it - https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-char...

But ultimately, the location of the hottest reading doesn't affect the long term trend which is the only thing that matters here, so I'm not sure what this conspiracy theory about Heathrow would achieve.

[.:ian:.]

durbster said:

Why would it need to be a coincidence?

It tends to get warmer inland and in built-up areas, and big expanses of tarmac will be warmer still, so it makes sense that an airport in a large, inland city would have warmer air than other places. I had a look at the data few years ago and Heathrow has a slightly higher average than other stations around it but it's not always the warmest.

I don't think planes come into it - I doubt the readings would change when planes are grounded but feel free to check. The data is freely available to anyone who wants it - https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-char...

But ultimately, the location of the hottest reading doesn't affect the long term trend which is the only thing that matters here, so I'm not sure what this conspiracy theory about Heathrow would achieve.

Surely it affects the long term trend as they are comparing against temperatures since 1850?

[durbster]

.:ian:. said:

Surely it affects the long term trend as they are comparing against temperatures since 1850?

They usually compare against more recent records to work out the trend because the data is a lot better. The Met Office's HADCRUT4 uses the average from 1961-1990 as its baseline - https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/scien...

[turbobloke]

Snips from the latest DT Politics update circular:

Labour today refused to put a price on its net zero plan

In a recording...Darren Jones, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said that Labour’s plan to decarbonise the economy will cost “hundreds of billions” of pounds.

Asked how much money the policy would cost in practice, shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson, who is likely to be sitting at the Cabinet table in just over a week’s time, did not give further details, which will only fuel fears of a black hole in the public finances under Starmer.

[Kawasicki]

turbobloke said:

This inversion of reality ^ clearly isn't confined to pretending extreme weather is associated with warming, when global cooling has been known as the cause for many years before The Cause existed.

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

[robinessex]

Kawasicki said:

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

There is NO SOLID SCIENTIFIC link between CO2/Temperature. Both are Chaotic systems and do their own thing.

PS. What is "extreme weather" and "justifiable" ?

[turbobloke]

Kawasicki said:

turbobloke said:

This inversion of reality ^ clearly isn't confined to pretending extreme weather is associated with warming, when global cooling has been known as the cause for many years before The Cause existed.

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

I think I see what you did there at the 'same thing' and '1880' points. I keep a space on the parrot perch for times like this.

[dickymint]

Kawasicki said:

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

I've read and re-read that a dozen times - it still comes back as..... bonkers!

[jet_noise]

dickymint said:

Kawasicki said:

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

I've read and re-read that a dozen times - it still comes back as..... bonkers!

Kawasicki's SOH can be arid at times.

[dickymint]

jet_noise said:

dickymint said:

Kawasicki said:

Any deviation, up OR down, from the average global temp(or CO2 level - same thing) of 1880 causes extreme weather to increase, all justifiable with basic physics.

I've read and re-read that a dozen times - it still comes back as..... bonkers!

Kawasicki's SOH can be arid at times.

I did wonder why it didn't compute - soz Kawa

[mike9009]

robinessex said:

There is NO SOLID SCIENTIFIC link between CO2/Temperature. Both are Chaotic systems and do their own thing.

I really think you do not understand chaos theory.

I think your theory goes like this? If the weather cannot be predicted accurately for next week, then how can we predict longer term trends?

As an example......

If a pipe has torrential water flowing down it, it is difficult to model each individual molecule, but easy to predict where the bulk of the water is flowing to. (the trend). Equally if you put a baffle in the pipe, it is even more difficult to predict where an individual molecule goes but relatively easy to see the impact on how long it takes for all the water to flow through.

Similar to the weather/ climate.

It is easy to predict that the summer is going to be warmer than the winter in this chaotic system. I am sure you could predict the average temp on a summer's day versus a day in January. And easy to estimate the likelyhood of a frost on a summer's day versus a winters day. Not so easy to predict precisely what the weather will be next week. This is where the phrase Mystic Met is coined, to undermine longer term trends.

So trends are easier to predict than precise days, especially as the forecast ventures further than a few days.

Now admittedly, the trends being forced by external factors are more complex then a summer versus winter day comparison. Position in milky way, solar flares and cycles are generally accepted models to predict the way the climate will and has behaved. These models do not generally attract the same critique from some quarters as it is not politically driven. But chaotic systems can absolutely be modelled for longer term trends.


Which brings us back to how accurate the models/ trends are.

Edited by mike9009 on Friday 28th June 18:03

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

robinessex said:

There is NO SOLID SCIENTIFIC link between CO2/Temperature. Both are Chaotic systems and do their own thing.

I really think you do not understand chaos theory.

I think your theory goes like this? If the weather cannot be predicted accurately for next week, then how can we predict longer term trends?

As an example......

If a pipe has torrential water flowing down it, it is difficult to model each individual molecule, but easy to predict where the bulk of the water is flowing to. (the trend). Equally if you put a baffle in the pipe, it is even more difficult to predict where an individual molecule goes but relatively easy to see the impact on how long it takes for all the water to flow through.

Similar to the weather/ climate.

It is easy to predict that the summer is going to be warmer than the winter in this chaotic system. I am sure you could predict the average temp on a summer's day versus a day in January. And easy to estimate the likelyhood of a frost on a summer's day versus a winters day. Not so easy to predict precisely what the weather will be next week. This is where the phrase Mystic Met is coined, to undermine longer term trends.

So trends are easier to predict than precise days, especially as the forecast ventures further than a few days.

Now admittedly, the trends being forced by external factors are more complex then a summer versus winter day comparison. Position in milky way, solar flares and cycles are generally accepted models to predict the way the climate will and has behaved. These models do not generally attract the same critique from some quarters as it is not politically driven. But chaotic systems can absolutely be modelled for longer term trends.


Which brings us back to how accurate the models/ trends are.

Edited by mike9009 on Friday 28th June 18:03

Which is not very.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

Which is not very.

Directionally correct though.

It would be interesting to see an alternative hypothesis to the current upward trend in temps, to actually challenge and provide some falsifiability to the argument. I am yet to see this, but Popper was a little binary in his theory as most complex systems are multifactorial.

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

Which is not very.

Directionally correct though.

It would be interesting to see an alternative hypothesis to the current upward trend in temps, to actually challenge and provide some falsifiability to the argument. I am yet to see this, but Popper was a little binary in his theory as most complex systems are multifactorial.

You cannot be a ‘little binary’ as you suggest. Oxymoron. I have no reason to suspect you understand what Karl Popper’s philosophical argument was.

[mike9009]

Still no alternate hypothesis though?