It is churlish to suggest that scientists, especially the narrow definition from @benfti are the only people qualified to comment on climate change. All of us can feel our environment in some way and all of us can contribute to the debate from our own experience, even if in a very local way.
And it is absolute nonsense to suggest that all scientists should think the same, and that a bloke like Flannery is not to be found credible because he is the wrong type of scientist. Science is never about absolutes and the pursuit of discovery means theories are forever tested, challenged and new theory evolves.
Obviously if 97% of climate change research shows that it is happening and is heavily influenced by the actions of man then it needs to be heeded. In fact, even if it was 10%, it is better to be safe than sorry.
Why the fark would you take the chance, and do nothing about it ?
Nobody ever has, the warmists called it Global Warming until the observation stubbornly refused to follow predictions ut was only then they started calling it climate change. even now they get confused between the two.
40C in Australia - Climate Change
-40C in the American Midwest - Global Warming
P.S.
How is the scientist Tim Flanneryâs 2007 assertion that âeven the rains that fallâ holding up?
I am only aware of two ice caps, Greenland which has put on 103 metres since 1941 (Glacier Girl and its companions) and the Antarctic which we have been breathlessly informed recently has lost 250 billion tonnes of ice.
Do you know how much one cubic km of ice weighs?
919,000,000 tonnes, 272 cubic km
Divide that by the area of the Antarctic, 14,000,000 sq km.
3 fifths of five eights of f**k all.
Spoiler alert, the melting ice is the Thwaites Glacier situated smack bang on the Ring of Fire.
Nothing disingenuous about that âscientificâ study.
An area twice that of Melbourne would fit into the Antarctic 5,147 times.
The Antarctic contains 26,500,000 km3 of ice.
Port Philip contains 26 km3
Removing the 250 billion tonnes of ice from the Antarctic is the equivalent of remove 1 cubic meter of water from Port Philip Bay, a whole 1000 litres.
I have seen women bathing at Mentone that would displace that much.
Do you call that significant?
COLLINS
significant
(sÉŞgnÉŞfÉŞkÉnt )
adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
A significant amount or effect is large enough to be important or affect a situation to a noticeable degree.
A small but significant number of 11-year-olds are illiterate.
âŚfoods that offer a significant amount of protein.
It is the first drug that seems to have a very significant effect on this disease.
Synonyms: important, marked, notable, striking More Synonyms of significant
significantly adverb [ADVERB with verb]
The number of MPs now supporting him had increased significantly.
Americaâs airlines have significantly higher productivity than European ones.
Synonyms: very much, greatly, hugely, vastly More Synonyms of significant
adjective
A significant fact, event, or thing is one that is important or shows something.
Time would appear to be the significant factor in this whole drama.
âŚa very significant piece of legislation.
I think it was significant that he never knew his own father.
significantly adverb
Significantly, the company recently opened a huge store in Atlanta.
graded adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
A significant action or gesture is intended to have a special meaning.
Mrs Bycraft gave Rose a significant glance.
And just remember it was from on glacier sited on an active volcano area.
I read today that Australia in January was the hottest on record and 3 degrees above the average. Thatâs 3 whole degrees on average across the whole continent, not just a single sensor at an airport.
Bit of a rookie mistake in the replying-to-sorfed stakes there BF - you trusted his numbers without verification.
This is why sorf and his fellow denialists are so tiresome. They spam you with so many falsehoods or misstatements or twistings of the truth or tactical omissions so fast that you have to analyse and fact-check EVERYTHING they say before responding to them or else you end up accepting their false premises and arguing on their false ground. And to take apart lies is much more tedious and time-consuming than telling them
Letâs break down sorfâs post here a bitâŚ
Iâd never even heard of Glacier Girl, so I had to google it. It is a P38 fighter that was forced down in greenland in WWII, and rediscovered recently under approximately 80 metres of snow. Sorf states this factoid in the hope that you will a) believe every piece of Greenland has received the same amount of snow accumulation over that time in an even layer, and b) that you will not know that snow melt does not occur in an even layer across areas, nor does it start at the surface of the snow. Icecap loss occurs in two major patterns that Iâm aware of (there may be more). First is that ice in contact with seawater melts faster, leading to glaciers flowing faster and melting quicker at their endpoint. Second is disproportionately from the bottom - small amounts of ice liquefy and trickle down cracks in the icesheet, where they pool until they form rivers of meltwater deep under the icecap, while the surface of the icecap often looks superficially unchanged. That this second phenomenon is occuring in Greenland is extremely well documented
Interesting number, isnât it. What sorf of course neglects to mention is the timescale heâs referring to - this number is the amount of ice that the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing PER YEAR. And of course he neglects to mention that the reason this number has been in the news is that a recent study discovered that less than a decade ago the Antarctic was âonlyâ losing 72 billion tons of ice per year. So the melting rate has tripled since the first Rudd govt was in power, and we have no real way of knowing at this point whether itâll triple again in another few years (glacier melt science is really really difficult and its predictions are unreliable, as everyone in the field admits). It may even worsen faster than that!
Using BFs maths on this one - an area twice the size of Melbourne, 100 metres thick, melting EVERY YEAR, right now, and this is accelerating at a terrifying rate?
When sorf does maths, youâll notice he always assumes linear relationships. He chooses two points and draws a straight line between them and extrapolates them to infinity and pretends this is mathematical rigor. He refuses to admit to the possibility of feedback loops, or any sort of geometric/exponential/logarithmic relationships. One wonders how he comprehends compound interest on his investments, tbh. He first attempts to hide that this 250 billion tons of ice loss is annual, then he asks you to assume that this current rate of ice loss is somehow the worst things are going to get, when all the evidence is profoundly the opposite.
Misleading statement, again. The thwaites is situated in West Antarctica, which is the area of greatest ice loss, but the problem is much, much more widespread across the region than he pretends. Icemelt from the Thwaites roughly contributes 4% to the current rate of sea level rise. In itself, it is trifling. What gets scary is if the Thwaites breaks down, seawater will flow inland at a considerable rate (the bed of the thwaites is below sea level, so the glacier will become an inlet) which will expose several other massive glaciers to extremely fast melting, glaciers that have so far been protected by lack of proximity to the sea. And thatâs where the 10-15 foot sea level rise estimates come from (not counting whatever contribution Greenland makes, of course)
While the world is run by conservative denalist governments, and self serving corporate interests, I think we are a fair bit away from the tipping point fwiw, the issue is, all these â â â bandits know we are all â â â â â â , they just know they will be dead before the worst of it hits.
If they donât care about their own children and grand children, what makes you think they give a toss about the rest of us?
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Humble minion has destroyed this stupidity about ten times in very detailed posts. If all youâve got is âglobal warmingâ is not âclimate changeâ, youâve got nothing.
