Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[deeps]

Some interesting comments following the article, for those that don't have time to read them all...

Commenter said:

First, the polar bears. Now, the glaciers. Next, the politics. The climate is changing.

Commenter said:

“In 2016, the water in this current cooled by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius).”
“Under the influence of this change, the Atlantic Ocean near Greenland cooled by about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 2013 and 2016. ”

Computational error in the second quotation from the article (9/5 ? .5/1).

Commenter said:

They implied that warming narrative throughout the entire article. Even if the cooling/warming switches nothing we can do about it.

Glaciers are not static mechanical/thermal entities they are dynamic sinks effected by many different input vectors.

Commenter said:

They can dramatize a small fraction of a degree as something significant and unprecedented, but they greatly downplay any sort of cooling.

A rational person might say that this is an unprecedented occurrence of cooling over the past twenty years.

A climate alarmist (doesn’t count as a “person”, and certainly NOT “rational”) would say that this is just a fluke in an ever warming world.

[gadgetmac]

deeps said:

"From NASA JPL: Cold Water Currently Slowing Fastest Thinning Greenland Glacier".

Article said:

NASA research shows that Jakobshavn Glacier, which has been Greenland’s fastest-flowing and fastest-thinning glacier for the last 20 years, has made an unexpected about-face. Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland. The glacier is still adding to global sea level rise – it continues to lose more ice to the ocean than it gains from snow accumulation – but at a slower rate.

The researchers conclude that the slowdown of this glacier, known in the Greenlandic language as Sermeq Kujalleq, occurred because an ocean current that brings water to the glacier’s ocean face grew much cooler in 2016. Water temperatures in the vicinity of the glacier are now colder than they have been since the mid-1980s.

More at the world's most viewed compromised site on global warming...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/25/inconvenien...

FTFY

[gadgetmac]

Psychology Today...Treating Climate Change Denial

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/denying-th...

Mental health professionals are increasingly recognizing the critical role they play in combating climate change. Data suggest that rising temperatures are linked to increases in multiple psychiatric disorders and suicide rates. In an excellent review of the mental health aspects of climate change, a group from the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto comment that “The overarching threats of a changing climate, can also incite despair and hopelessness as actions to address the ‘wicked problem’ of climate change seem intangible or insignificant in comparison to the scale and magnitude of the threats."



5 minutes spent reading through this thread would be enough to confirm it’s a condition that needs some serious investigating.

[micky g]

gadgetmac said:

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

If you call selecting the relevant text as cherry picking then I'm guilty as charged. This was the text relating to the current status on polar bear numbers, which is exactly what you were criticising Crockford for, 'suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005.'
Any future 'estimates' are irrelevant in this context.

[gadgetmac]

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

If you call selecting the relevant text as cherry picking then I'm guilty as charged. This was the text relating to the current status on polar bear numbers, which is exactly what you were criticising Crockford for, 'suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005.'
Any future 'estimates' are irrelevant in this context.

Er, wrong. I wasn't criticising Crockford rather dismissing her as her more learned colleagues seem to have done. This is a common trait with the fake experts selected by the flat earthers, they get pulled up by real experts. I might also add that her book says that polar bears numbers have "increased or remained stable" when it appears that they have remained stable in some populations whilst decreasing in one. Nowhere are they "increasing" as she says. Polar bears are also at high risk of future decline.

[Jinx]

"there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency."




FFS So lack of data = higher risk?



If you lack the data then there is also a high estimated risk of future incline because you don't know.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

jet_noise said:

gadgetmac said:

Looks like Wiki has also got Susan Crockfords number too.

Although claims made on Crockford's blog have been called into question by polar bear scientists, the blog has been widely cited by climate change denying websites, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears. Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears. In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” he told the website.

In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This report was met with widespread backlash for results suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005, despite declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline.

Good to see the tech companies are starting to get to grips with fake news now. About time.

Ian Stirling. Hmm. Neither the most impartial nor reliable of sources. He's joint author of a paper described by Prof Curry as the stupidest she's ever seen. Also claimed a poster bear had died of climate change!
On "declining summer sea ice levels that Crockford claims should have already resulted in disastrous decline".
It is not Crockford who is making this claim. It is the position of mainstream polar bear scientists (and of course based on models). She is making the point that observational evidence of polar bear numbers is contrary to models. Sound familiar?

Judith Curry...criticised Ian Stirling?

What are Judith's qualifications in this area. Indeed what are Crockfords?

As for Stirling claiming that global warming had killed the bear what he actually said was it died of starvation probably due the ice in Svalbard not freezing normally that winter.

You'll also find that polar bears are now an officially recognised endangered species.

Arctic WWF state 'Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers'

Seems like a clear enough statement to me.

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

Unless you Bar Code every white Bruno, no idea how you keep track of them!

[gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

"there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency."




FFS So lack of data = higher risk?



If you lack the data then there is also a high estimated risk of future incline because you don't know.

Seriously, that's your answer.

So you don't think it's feckin' obvious that if a creatures habitat is being destroyed then it's in danger?

And if the data in question is (say) how they are responding to this loss of habitat...and thus how we can help them. No data = No help.

Wow, IQ's just took a sharp downwards plunge in here. And that's saying something due to the fact they weren't very high to begin with.

[jet_noise]

Jinx said:

"there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency."




FFS So lack of data = higher risk?



If you lack the data then there is also a high estimated risk of future incline because you don't know.

Models predict decline.
Data disagrees.
Needs an outsider to highlight.
Establishment attacks the outsider rather than the data.

It's deja vu all over again

[gadgetmac]

jet_noise said:

Models predict decline.
Data disagrees.
Needs an outsider to highlight.
Establishment attacks the outsider rather than the data.

It's deja vu all over again

97 cancer surgeons (the establishment) tell you that without an operation your daughter will die. 3 unqualified surgeons (outsiders) tell you it's rubbish, she'll be fine.

Idiot chooses to follow the advice of the 3 unqualified surgeons.

[micky g]

gadgetmac said:

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

If you call selecting the relevant text as cherry picking then I'm guilty as charged. This was the text relating to the current status on polar bear numbers, which is exactly what you were criticising Crockford for, 'suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005.'
Any future 'estimates' are irrelevant in this context.

Er, wrong. I wasn't criticising Crockford rather dismissing her as her more learned colleagues seem to have done. This is a common trait with the fake experts selected by the flat earthers, they get pulled up by real experts. I might also add that her book says that polar bears numbers have "increased or remained stable" when it appears that they have remained stable in some populations whilst decreasing in one. Nowhere are they "increasing" as she says. Polar bears are also at high risk of future decline.

'Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers' indicates that they have increased from previously diminished numbers. Please don't try to patronise me, particularly when you are wrong. It's the data that matters not the messenger.

[gadgetmac]

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

If you call selecting the relevant text as cherry picking then I'm guilty as charged. This was the text relating to the current status on polar bear numbers, which is exactly what you were criticising Crockford for, 'suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005.'
Any future 'estimates' are irrelevant in this context.

Er, wrong. I wasn't criticising Crockford rather dismissing her as her more learned colleagues seem to have done. This is a common trait with the fake experts selected by the flat earthers, they get pulled up by real experts. I might also add that her book says that polar bears numbers have "increased or remained stable" when it appears that they have remained stable in some populations whilst decreasing in one. Nowhere are they "increasing" as she says. Polar bears are also at high risk of future decline.

'Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers' indicates that they have increased from previously diminished numbers. Please don't try to patronise me, particularly when you are wrong. It's the data that matters not the messenger.

When she says increased that means from a healthy position, not "they were down to just 5 left now there are 6" hence an increase.

It's the misrepresentation that matters in this instance as it always is with denier sources.

[Diderot]

jet_noise said:

Jinx said:

"there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency."




FFS So lack of data = higher risk?



If you lack the data then there is also a high estimated risk of future incline because you don't know.

Models predict decline.
Data disagrees.
Needs an outsider to highlight.
Establishment attacks the outsider rather than the data.

It's deja vu all over again

Yeah but yeah but no but. In all those 150 peer reviewed papers that Sir Gadgetmac of Gullibleville was trumpeting (cos natch he's read them all), the researcher still has no idea how many cuddly fox's glacier mint bears there are. But because the polar bear is a fundamental building block of the CAGW narrative, who cares about the data, let's just fill in the myriad blanks in knowledge with [insert fantastical fabricated bks and fanciful extrapolations]. Data matter. Unless climate science.

Models fail once again. Quelle surprise.

[gadgetmac]

Whilst once again the faux pro attacks the expert on Polar Bears whilst defending the layman/laywoman's opinion.

Quelle surprise.

[micky g]

gadgetmac said:

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

micky g said:

gadgetmac said:

Cherry picked a bit there didn’t you

Full statement:

Scientists have divided the total polar bear population into 19 units or subpopulations. Of those, the latest data from the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group show that one subpopulation is in decline (Southern Beaufort Sea) and that there is a high estimated risk of future decline due to climate change and data deficiency.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2

If you call selecting the relevant text as cherry picking then I'm guilty as charged. This was the text relating to the current status on polar bear numbers, which is exactly what you were criticising Crockford for, 'suggesting polar bear numbers have grown or remained steady since 2005.'
Any future 'estimates' are irrelevant in this context.

Er, wrong. I wasn't criticising Crockford rather dismissing her as her more learned colleagues seem to have done. This is a common trait with the fake experts selected by the flat earthers, they get pulled up by real experts. I might also add that her book says that polar bears numbers have "increased or remained stable" when it appears that they have remained stable in some populations whilst decreasing in one. Nowhere are they "increasing" as she says. Polar bears are also at high risk of future decline.

'Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers' indicates that they have increased from previously diminished numbers. Please don't try to patronise me, particularly when you are wrong. It's the data that matters not the messenger.

When she says increased that means from a healthy position, not "they were down to just 5 left now there are 6" hence an increase.

It's the misrepresentation that matters in this instance as it always is with denier sources.

Irrespective of your own personal interpretation of what 'increase' means, if you check the WWF site it actually shows that in two regions the bear population is increasing.

What misrepresentation?

[gadgetmac]

As you seem to accept the WWF as gospel on this then they also say:

"The Sothern Beaufort Sea posted a population reduction of 40% between 2001 and 2010. Down from 1,500 to 900."

They also say "It's a clear warning sign of the impact of warming on an ice-dependent species like the polar bear".

In tone this is not what Susan Crockford is saying at all.

[Jinx]

gadgetmac said:

97 cancer surgeons (the establishment) tell you that without an operation your daughter will die. 3 unqualified surgeons (outsiders) tell you it's rubbish, she'll be fine.

Idiot chooses to follow the advice of the 3 unqualified surgeons.

97 cancer surgeons who haven't examined your daughter or looked at her notes tell you she will die without expensive treatment from one of those surgeons (lack of data remember) . 3 GPs, your daughter and the rest of your family say she's fine.......

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

gadgetmac said:

97 cancer surgeons (the establishment) tell you that without an operation your daughter will die. 3 unqualified surgeons (outsiders) tell you it's rubbish, she'll be fine.

Idiot chooses to follow the advice of the 3 unqualified surgeons.

97 cancer surgeons who haven't examined your daughter or looked at her notes tell you she will die without expensive treatment from one of those surgeons (lack of data remember) . 3 GPs, your daughter and the rest of your family say she's fine.......

Exactly, and...

1 The 97 number is baseless.
2 The other group has qualified persons.
3 Finally "take nobody's word for it" regardless of whether they are favoured vested interest gurus or heretics

The data do matter, whereas views do not.

Some modern(ish) history of London popped up on cable a few nights ago which covered a serious outbreak of cholera in the city. The consensus was it spreads via miasma (bad smell) but an engineer saw data clustering the cases around a water pump. It took time to persuade local politicians that the consensus was bunkum but the pump was eventually sealed off and the cholera outbreak was controlled as the real cause, a contaminated water supply, was addressed. Opinions schminions even where a consensus exists unline agw among scientists in the wider view i.e. outside those whose grants/careers/reputations/influence depend on agw.

[gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

gadgetmac said:

97 cancer surgeons (the establishment) tell you that without an operation your daughter will die. 3 unqualified surgeons (outsiders) tell you it's rubbish, she'll be fine.

Idiot chooses to follow the advice of the 3 unqualified surgeons.

97 cancer surgeons who haven't examined your daughter or looked at her notes tell you she will die without expensive treatment from one of those surgeons (lack of data remember) . 3 GPs, your daughter and the rest of your family say she's fine.......

It's the other way around. It's the 97 who are there examining the cancer versus the 3 who are pontificating from behind their cosy (Heartland) desk and have no credibility with their peers.

[zygalski]

I thought we'd established that the 97% consensus figure was unrealistic & it was a bit higher?