Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[DapperDanMan]

wc98 said:

LongQ said:

Evocative colours and interesting projections.

Colours are just colours, If you inverted them would the map have the same "meaning"?

If you changed the scale of the estimated values and the granularity of the estimates would that change the message in any way?

More to the point, what will this mean (and I don't mean "what might one speculate") about the future?

Would any of the warming pundits put their personal wealth on the line now and their future pensions on the line with a prediction about the more distant future?

If any have I have yet to hear about their fan club(s) offering their plaudits.

fiery red and orange seem to be the most popular i have a 1 k bet with jim hunt (the daily mail stalker,great white con website) regarding arctic sea ice levels by 2022 . i would imagine he is getting quite excited this year after the low winter extent. like most warmest they only read half a story. in this instance forgetting low winter sea ice extent means more heat lost to the atmosphere from the ocean that is not insulated by ice.
i wonder how many of our consensus advocates in this thread have any skin in the game .

It isn't a game and we and our descendants ALL have something to loose way beyond a pension.

[budgie smuggler]

wc98 said:

budgie smuggler said:

Well it certainly didn't back up the impression you presented. From what you said I thought the map would look like a close up of a pointillism painting with a red block at the top, rather than 80%+ of it showing warming.

spec savers have a two for one deal on at the moment ,might be an idea for you and durbs to go together to make the most of it.

Yeah, I was wrong, it's not 80% warming on that image, it's 92%.

If you dispute this figure, I want to see some workings.

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

Just weather possibly, or symptomatic of the ongoing flushing out of multi-year sea ice from the arctic as it warms.

Possibly. Let me think about that for a moment...
...no, still laughing.

It's Climatewang.
Less ice= warming. More ice= warming.

Do you realise (/Flaming Lips reference) how preposterous this sounds? Mr Occam's grave-located spin-rate is approaching light speed.

[durbster]

jet_noise said:

Possibly. Let me think about that for a moment...
...no, still laughing.

It's Climatewang.
Less ice= warming. More ice= warming.

Do you realise (/Flaming Lips reference) how preposterous this sounds? Mr Occam's grave-located spin-rate is approaching light speed.

Out of interest, have you read any other sources for the story?

Can you point to where it says there is "more ice"?

Here's the original article without the Breitbart spin: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-clim...

Winnipeg Free Press said:

But Barber said once out on the water the scientists realized this wasn't the usual sea ice, which would be relatively easy for the icebreaker to plow through, but thicker ice from further north which had broken off...

Because the ice is melting, it's breaking up and moving about.

For example, a massive 5,000 square km of ice is expected to break off the Antarctic soon . If it breaks free, it'll float about.

Speaking of propaganda, are you deliberately parroting turbobloke's catchphrases or was it subconscious?

[LongQ]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Evocative colours and interesting projections.

Colours are just colours, If you inverted them would the map have the same "meaning"?

You're even seeing a conspiracy in colours now?

Red is a warm colour. Blue is a cool colour. That's widely understood and it is entirely logical to use them to represent temperature.

The point of the graphic is to illustrate which bits of the globe are warming and which are cooling. It's a functional illustration. It would be utterly confusing to invert the colours because most people would interpret it incorrectly.

Honestly, the lengths you go to to contrive a story to fit your fantasy are absolutely extraordinary.

Durbster you have yet again managed to entirely miss the point with your strange belief that everyone who does not agree with you is a conspiracy theorist. Seems like you may believe there is some sort of conspiracy in progress.

I am completely aware of the effects of colour, at least for those who are not colour blind. In fact the very familiar usage and the assumptions that people are naturally conditioned to make when they seem colour can be part of the problem of interpretation. Very easy to misrepresent on the basis that everyone "knows" what they mean without having to check the numbers. Of course few people WILL check the numbers and think about the message because "everyone" understands the meaning of colours, right?

Jeez, it's so dark red up in the huge Arctic expanse that there must be tropical plants growing by now ...

[LongQ]

DapperDanMan said:

It isn't a game and we and our descendants ALL have something to loose way beyond a pension.

If you are that worried - don't have any descendants and, to help everyone else who may be born at some point in the future, abandon your life of consumption today to make the world a better place.

If you cannot or will not do that, don't preach at others.

That's my generic advice for anyone wishing to make a strong case in support of "green" social policies.

You would agree with that I assume?

[durbster]

LongQ said:

Durbster you have yet again managed to entirely miss the point with your strange belief that everyone who does not agree with you is a conspiracy theorist. Seems like you may believe there is some sort of conspiracy in progress.

Rather than simply agreeing that the graphic shows warming, you went off on a ramble about how the colours could be misrepresenting the data or have been chosen to mislead people.

You've taken something simple and transparent and rather than accept it as it is, you've started trying to contrive a hidden meaning or purpose behind it? You're implying the designer could be deliberately misleading people based on absolutely nothing at all.

It's a very clear graphic that relays the information it's trying to relay. Why not accept it for what it is?

[LongQ]

durbster said:

LongQ said:

Durbster you have yet again managed to entirely miss the point with your strange belief that everyone who does not agree with you is a conspiracy theorist. Seems like you may believe there is some sort of conspiracy in progress.

Rather than simply agreeing that the graphic shows warming, you went off on a ramble about how the colours could be misrepresenting the data or have been chosen to mislead people.

You've taken something simple and transparent and rather than accept it as it is, you've started trying to contrive a hidden meaning or purpose behind it? You're implying the designer could be deliberately misleading people based on absolutely nothing at all.

It's a very clear graphic that relays the information it's trying to relay. Why not accept it for what it is?

It relays the message that the creators wanted it to relay.

That's not necessarily the same as the information that might be derived from the numbers.

Clear it may be, as a message. Whether that message is distorted for effect is another matter.

These things put me in mind of theatre posters where critics are "quoted" as wiring "Fantastic evening of entertainment" where as in fact they may have written "Could have been a fantastic evening of entertainment if the singers could sing and the dancer could dance."

As the punter, absent any check on the source reference, you will have bought the spin and the ticket before discovering whether the words were a reasonable representation of what was on offer.

And just to confuse matters, in colour temperature terms measured in degrees Kelvin, reds are lower temperatures than blues. Ironic really.

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

Just weather possibly, or symptomatic of the ongoing flushing out of multi-year sea ice from the arctic as it warms.

Possibly. Let me think about that for a moment...
...no, still laughing.

It's Climatewang.
Less ice= warming. More ice= warming.

Do you realise (/Flaming Lips reference) how preposterous this sounds? Mr Occam's grave-located spin-rate is approaching light speed.

I don't claim to know either way, but it does appear to be mobile pack ice coming out of the arctic and heading south according to the reports.

The Arctic research guy points to a climate change aspect:

Essentially, the Arctic ice, because of climate change, is having its thickness reduced which in turn allows the ice to become more mobile. The ice was able to escape the Arctic to the Labrador current and make its way south. Barber says that situation works as a microcosm that showcases the need for Canada to start planning for the transformation climate change is, and will, bring, as it will affect our everyday activities and trade routes. "We're really at the beginning of this," said Barber. "It's only going to get worse."

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/arctic-climate-...

The coast guard points to a weather aspect (wind):

Trevor Hodgson, the Canadian Coast Guard's superintendent of ice operations for the Atlantic region, said the heavy ice is more than two metres thick in some areas off the province's northeast coast.

"We had a bit of stuff that forms over the winter, the normal ice in the area," he said. "What we're experiencing now is the ice that has come south through the Arctic due to melting up there."

What's unusual this year, Hodgson said, is the way the winds have pushed the thick pack ice towards land rather than out to sea.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thick-arctic-ice-pack...

[durbster]

LongQ said:

...your strange belief that everyone who does not agree with you is a conspiracy theorist.

Have you ever read what you write?

LongQ said:

It relays the message that the creators wanted it to relay.

That's not necessarily the same as the information that might be derived from the numbers.
...
Whether that message is distorted for effect is another matter.

[wc98]

budgie smuggler said:

Yeah, I was wrong, it's not 80% warming on that image, it's 92%.

If you dispute this figure, I want to see some workings.

you do realise global implies 100% ? are you aware that the planet has gone through warming and cooling episodes since its creation ? it has been both warmer and cooler in the past ? the image we are talking about shows apparent warming over a 30 year period which is approximately half of the warm phase of the major oceanic warming/cooling cycles . i say apparent as it has been compiled by reanalysis data, not measured temperatures, there is a huge difference. those red hot arctic temperatures have not been measured for instance.they have been extrapolated ,in some cases from over 1000km away.

[wc98]

DapperDanMan said:

It isn't a game and we and our descendants ALL have something to loose way beyond a pension.

no matter what age you personally are i will bet my house against your house you will experience no negative effects of man made global warming in your life time .
as for people that haven't even been born yet ,well compromising ones personal life for people that might be born in the future may appear a nice conscientious thing to do and look good on facebook posts, but bugger that. i enjoy burning fuel in cars and bikes, to heat my house, camping etc and really enjoy all the hydrocarbon products that make my life easier and more enjoyable.

i think the majority are the same. when i see the virtue signallers like dicaprio and gore living in mud huts and wearing clothing made from grass i might start believing they are not band wagon jumpers. until that time i think they are lying devious and dangerous individuals due to the amount of gullible clowns that listen to their garbage.

[wc98]

durbster said:

Rather than simply agreeing that the graphic shows warming, you went off on a ramble about how the colours could be misrepresenting the data or have been chosen to mislead people.

where did anyone say the graphic did not show warming ? are you sure you are not involved in the climate industry in some way ? your not so subtle twisting of peoples replies on here is very similar to the style of most skeptical science members.

[budgie smuggler]

wc98 said:

you do realise global implies 100% ? are you aware that the planet has gone through warming and cooling episodes since its creation ? it has been both warmer and cooler in the past ? the image we are talking about shows apparent warming over a 30 year period which is approximately half of the warm phase of the major oceanic warming/cooling cycles . i say apparent as it has been compiled by reanalysis data, not measured temperatures, there is a huge difference. those red hot arctic temperatures have not been measured for instance.they have been extrapolated ,in some cases from over 1000km away.

I don't (know enough to) dispute any of that, what I was disputing was the IMHO misleading way you interpreted and presented the image to others.

Like I said, from your description I was expecting a patchwork quilt of warming and cooling, not 92% warming.

Then you had the cheek to say I needed to go to specsavers

Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 14th June 12:24

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

I don't claim to know either way, but it does appear to be mobile pack ice coming out of the arctic and heading south according to the reports.

The Arctic research guy points to a climate change aspect:

Essentially, the Arctic ice, because of climate change, is having its thickness reduced which in turn allows the ice to become more mobile. The ice was able to escape the Arctic to the Labrador current and make its way south. Barber says that situation works as a microcosm that showcases the need for Canada to start planning for the transformation climate change is, and will, bring, as it will affect our everyday activities and trade routes. "We're really at the beginning of this," said Barber. "It's only going to get worse."

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/arctic-climate-...

The coast guard points to a weather aspect (wind):

Trevor Hodgson, the Canadian Coast Guard's superintendent of ice operations for the Atlantic region, said the heavy ice is more than two metres thick in some areas off the province's northeast coast.

"We had a bit of stuff that forms over the winter, the normal ice in the area," he said. "What we're experiencing now is the ice that has come south through the Arctic due to melting up there."

What's unusual this year, Hodgson said, is the way the winds have pushed the thick pack ice towards land rather than out to sea.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thick-arctic-ice-pack...

do you remember a ship called the titanic hitting a big white thing some time in the past ? what might that white thing have been,and where may it have come from ? shifts in the beaufort gyre and transpolar drift can move multi year ice over long distances.
multi year ice moving out of the arctic is nothing new,it is just reported as such.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/circ...

[wc98]

budgie smuggler said:

I don't (know enough to) dispute any of that, what I was disputing was the IMHO misleading way you interpreted and presented the image to others.

Like I said, from your description I was expecting a patchwork quilt of warming and cooling, not 92% warming.

Then you had the cheek to say I needed to go to specsavers

Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 14th June 12:24

i said some areas had warmed, some had cooled ,some had no change and the arctic accounted for most of the warming trend. how you interpreted that statement i had no control over.
on a local level there are numerous places showing cooling trends over various recent timescales, can you tell me how that squares with with the instantaneous effect of co2 and the fact that the majority of anthropogenic co2 has been released to the atmosphere in the last 30 years ? 20 of which showed no increase in global temperature (despite the use of various interesting methods instead of direct measurement) contrary to the more co2 causes more warming mantra .

[durbster]

wc98 said:

you do realise global implies 100% ?

[durbster]

wc98 said:

multi year ice moving out of the arctic is nothing new,it is just reported as such.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/circ...

That's the NSIDC that monitors total arctic sea ice levels - here is their latest data:

[Jinx]

durbster said:

That's the NSIDC that monitors total arctic sea ice levels - here is their latest data:

Base period? - and this is extent again and not total ice.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Base period? - and this is extent again and not total ice.

All the information is available on their website, as ever: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/tr...