Jump to content

BornFromTheVoid

Forum Team
  • Content Count

    10,333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

BornFromTheVoid last won the day on October 10 2018

BornFromTheVoid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10,709

4 Followers

About BornFromTheVoid

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Darlington
  • Interests
    Climate and weather, music, Formula 1, rugby, a few other sports and sciences.
  • Weather Preferences
    Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms

Recent Profile Visitors

33,843 profile views
  1. Please take some time to understand the things you wish to debunk. Every point made that you think shows a weakness in climate science, only serves to highlight a weakness in your own understanding. A few items to work on: how atmospheric GhG levels are calculated how the proportion of anthropogenic GhGs are calculated how warming is attributed to GhGs the relationship between short term natural fluctuations and multidecadal anthropogenic warming the methods for attributing extreme weather events to climate change global temperature trends in the 10,000 years before the 20th century There are plenty of online resources that can explain these topics. The questions thread might help a bit too, but would require dealing with one topic at a time. I can try to answer some questions in there, but I'm neck deep in writing up my thesis so time is rather limited. However, misrepresenting/misunderstanding different aspects of climate science, then throwing in a bunch of ad-hominen attacks is pretty much the worst basis you can use for declaring the science is wrong and that you can some how save it with a new approach. As such, this thread is getting locked
  2. Just a quick reminder about the ban on political discussion. It's a tough boundary to define in terms of climate change as it's so often intertwined with economics/politics. However, if your post is all politics and no climate, there's a fair chance the line has been crossed!
  3. I'm kinda glad that modern propaganda methods weren't as well developed around the time of the ozone depletion problem. Back then, we had industries claiming economic collapse, that the scientists were biased, then hiring fake experts to write fake reports. They just weren't as effective in seeding the public with their BS. I strongly suspect, was it occurring nowadays, we'd have been much less likely to come to a global agreement. The scary predictions made by scientists at the time would have been met with the same level of public ridicule and dismissal as current climate scientists and activists.
  4. Have you a source for that stuff? Also Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue Met as ban ruled unlawful | Environment | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Section 14 order issued to halt protest across London was not legitimate, high court rules
  5. You can estimate the contribution of thermal expansions by measuring the ocean heat accumulation. Currently, that's thought to contribute about 1/3 of total sea level rise. Another way, that's much less precise but kinda interesting, is tracking the geographical distribution of sea level rise. Ice sheets have a gravitation influence on the oceans, pulling water towards them and increasing the relative sea level around them. As the ice sheets lose mass, their gravitational pull weakens. Overtime, this can result in a lowering of local sea levels, and a rise at the opposite side of the planet. So a loss of ice in Greenland may have a very slight negative influence on sea level rise here, but cause an increase in the Pacific somewhere. So by looking at the changes in relative sea level across the planet, you can also infer the mass loss from the ice sheets and to a lesser extent the glaciers. Probably easier just to directly measure the weakening gravitational pull from the ice sheets themselves from satellite such as GRACE though.
  6. Other than the fact that she has close associations with the biggest climate change denial groups, you could always try read about these things from reputable sources? A partisan paper, with headlines like "When the young are brainwashed by the climate hoax" and that requests comments from climate change deniers like Marc Morano is only ever interested in misinforming you. But the funny thing is, she's never published a single paper on polar bears. Instead she she speaks at climate change denier events, writes articles for them and blogs a bit. She's not a polar bear expert, and she's not a polar bear researcher.
  7. I never made mention of you in my post, nor climate debates - just providing some context. Evey extent data set used masks to blank out areas where the sensors detect ice when there is none, so false values don't get incorporated into the extent data. These masks get updated and refined occasionally. There is also the issue where pixels, which are usually 10s of km2 for extent data, are near coastlines. With these, you get pixels covering both land and ocean, and determining how much, if any, ice is present in these pixels is more challenging. Improving algorithms over time to make these measurements more accurate is a positive thing, and not a reason to dismiss one data set over another, unless you believe there's a conspiracy theory to hide the truth about the ice. Every sea ice dataset goes through multiple versions and refinements, even JAXA (now called ADS) .These revisions apply to the entire dataset, so they remain consistent through time. ADS just isn't as well known, so their revisions don't get as much attention from anti-science conspiracy blogs. MASIE is produced by the NSIDC also, but use different methods, sensors, data and commonly has big gaps in their records. For example, they use optical sensors to determine where the ice edge is. Optical sensors have a way higher resolution than the microwave sensors typically used, but can't see through cloud or at night, so their use is sporadic and dependent on time of year and weather conditions. It's an inconsistent data set overtime. It can be fun to observe now, but shouldn't be compared to previous years. That's explicitly not it's purpose.
  8. It's important to keep in mind that ice growth is typically the fastest at this time of year. We can see daily ice growth of over 100,000km2, and it still be well below average. In fact, this has been happening over the last week or so, and according to the ADS and NSIDC extent measurements we're lowest on record by over half a million km2. For some perspective, that's over twice the land area of the UK. So the sea ice situation at the moment is worsening relative to the other years. Also, MASIE is not suitable for comparisons with other years, as it's an operational data set (they changes their methods and data sources frequently), so it's not an apples to apples comparison with other years. It makes this quite clear on their website. There are plenty of data sets designed specifically for making year to year or longer term comparisons, but MASIE is specifically not meant for that. ADS graph: VISHOP ADS.NIPR.AC.JP VIsualization Service of Horizontal scale Observations at Polar region NSIDC graph: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis NSIDC.ORG MASIE FAQ: FAQs | National Snow and Ice Data Center NSIDC.ORG FAQs
  9. You made out that the US isn't doing anything like what the Chinese are planning, but they are. Different hydrocarbon, same result for the climate. It's not head in the sand. Well aware that global action needs to start somewhere. The Montreal Protocol is proof of what can be achieved with global cooperation working off scientific, expert consensus. If we all sit around complaining that we won't pull the finger out until all of China and India has, then no progress will be made.
  10. But Trump has scrapped loads of deep water drilling regulations and opened up an Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska and the Beaufort sea to oil drilling.
  11. Every protest causes disruption. Disruption can be peaceful. Arguing the legality of it is a different matter. Saying that, civil disobedience has shown time and time again to be a very effective tool for spurring social change. Illegal ≠ violent or immoral.
  12. It seems like his want to help protect the environment and his career are coming increasingly into conflict in his mind. Maybe a surprise retirement, or move to Formula E?
×
×
  • Create New...