Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
This is peachy, climate politics voodoo gets exorcised as the data do matter.
Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
Interesting. What is causing the absorbed shortwave radiation to increase this century? No one explains that? Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
mike9009 said:
turbobloke said:
This is peachy, climate politics voodoo gets exorcised as the data do matter.
Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
Interesting. What is causing the absorbed shortwave radiation to increase this century? No one explains that? Oceans have been warming as mentioned on this thread recently, with a nod and a wink to humans, when looking at high regional sea skin temperatures caused by lack of mixing and reduced latent heat energy transfers (less agitation => less mixing so surface retains heat, less evaporation so surface doesn't lose latent heat). Energy imbalance errors including TOA are no big deal, we've neen told, when they are the real deal.
Kato & Rose 2024 on shortwave irradiance variation.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/eQzhw9uU.jpg
This can explain why the top of atmosphere (TOA) energy imbalance has been “increasing with time"...This positive imbalance “leads mostly to heating ocean” and it fully accounts for the surface imbalance estimate...Warming of the oceans...can easily be explained by the increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation
Fascinating discussion of the primary source Kato and Rose 2024 over at the secondary source NoTricksZone
In comparing the 2022 paper cited by kerplunk with climate poltiics assumptions on the fundamental issue of EarthEI, note that so-called enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) effect involves radiative absorption and operates at molecular level, with e.g. CO2 molecule dimension 0.23nm, while albedo for the atmosphere involves reflection/scattering via aerosol particles and is a different matter (no pun intended). Typical aerosol particle dimensions range from 2-100 nm at the lower end up to 2-100 microns in clouds. 1000nm is one micron, so we have order of magnitude differences in size of particle and a completely different process.
In terms of the paper: earth energy imbalance change in recent decades is largely aerosol scattering/reflection. As per earlier, pause for thought...
Even before the faux climate crisis acknowledgements (Christy, Curry, Hulme and others) western climate politics was unravelliing slowly; it'll take ages.
Moving on to more climate politics from climate politics blogs:
A reminder that we're living through the Adjustocene from RealClimateScience
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/QQ758osY.png
Dodo EVs USA? from Climate Depot
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LLLLAoqB.jpg
Paris isn't in India a remunder from NALOPKT
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zJMRPjBV.jpg
turbobloke said:
This is peachy, climate politics voodoo gets exorcised as the data do matter.
Data does indeed matter. So why are you ignoring the data that shows the global cooling you said would happen isn't happening?
And why do you reject the data that supports climate science?
(answer: because the data doesn't fit the ideology)
The disappeared post also mentioned that the paper in 2022 Proc R Soc A also noted that where climate models get recent dacades of the Earth Energy Imbalance right, they do so for the wrong reasons (i.e. not atmospheric albedo, aerosol scattering/reflection, as per the paper's findings).
This describes chance agreement with data, not skill, as indicated on PH in this and other contexts.
Given this shows how climate models, with such fundamental errors, are unworthy of any influence over policy, it's spot on for this thread. I can'r see a reason why this information isn't relevant and acceptable in a climate politics thread, so enquiries are in train over the disappearance.
This describes chance agreement with data, not skill, as indicated on PH in this and other contexts.
Given this shows how climate models, with such fundamental errors, are unworthy of any influence over policy, it's spot on for this thread. I can'r see a reason why this information isn't relevant and acceptable in a climate politics thread, so enquiries are in train over the disappearance.
durbster said:
(answer: because the data doesn't fit the ideology)
Personal angle, null points, and deeply ironic. The data doesn't fit agw crisis dogma and fits models by accident, they get recent decades of Earth Energy Imbalance output right for the wrong reason, see the 2022 Proc R Soc A paper. so model accuracy = chance not skill.The right reason is atmospheric albedo linked to clouds/aerosols as per the paper. Anyone can do a Ctrl+F find on the 2022 Proc R Soc A paper I believe is being referred to, as it turns out to be open access now.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.109...
Search terms to use...uggest reading around the location of each find.
global changes observed
net absorption of solar energy (2 results in Section 7)
wrong reason (2 results including Section 7)
In the disappeared post, I non-controversially and helpfully
noted that anyone with a background in physical science, noting the update nature of Kato and Rose 2024, may wish to look for more detail around the Kato & Rose 2024 thermodynamic approach as featured in Zijun et al 2004 (Entropy budget of the earth, atmosphere and ocean system) then Kato and Rose 2019. turbobloke said:
In comparing the 2022 paper cited by kerplunk with climate poltiics assumptions on the fundamental issue of EarthEI, note that so-called enhanced greenhouse gas (GHG) effect involves radiative absorption and operates at molecular level, with e.g. CO2 molecule dimension 0.23nm, while albedo for the atmosphere involves reflection/scattering via aerosol particles and is a different matter (no pun intended). Typical aerosol particle dimensions range from 2-100 nm at the lower end up to 2-100 microns in clouds. 1000nm is one micron, so we have order of magnitude differences in size of particle and a completely different process.
In terms of the paper: earth energy imbalance change in recent decades is largely aerosol scattering/reflection. As per earlier, pause for thought...
Even before the faux climate crisis acknowledgements (Christy, Curry, Hulme and others) western climate politics was unravelliing slowly; it'll take ages.
Moving on to more climate politics from climate politics blogs:
A reminder that we're living through the Adjustocene from RealClimateScience
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/QQ758osY.png
Dodo EVs USA? from Climate Depot
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LLLLAoqB.jpg
Paris isn't in India a remunder from NALOPKT
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zJMRPjBV.jpg
So, are you stating that individual molecules are smaller than droplets?? Not sure whether I buy that In terms of the paper: earth energy imbalance change in recent decades is largely aerosol scattering/reflection. As per earlier, pause for thought...
Even before the faux climate crisis acknowledgements (Christy, Curry, Hulme and others) western climate politics was unravelliing slowly; it'll take ages.
Moving on to more climate politics from climate politics blogs:
A reminder that we're living through the Adjustocene from RealClimateScience
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/QQ758osY.png
Dodo EVs USA? from Climate Depot
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/LLLLAoqB.jpg
Paris isn't in India a remunder from NALOPKT
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/zJMRPjBV.jpg
I read that atoms (hydrogen, oxygen) are 37 and 60pm respectively, so there is no way they could impact the precipitation ...... And you realise that 1000 picometer = 1 nanometer. That is how small hydrogen and oxygen are.....I dont understand the need to snip jpegs into your posts rather than providing links? These are not the precious copyrighted research papers being alluded to in the past?
Edited by mike9009 on Friday 15th March 15:28
turbobloke said:
Personal angle, null points, and deeply ironic. The data doesn't fit agw crisis dogma and fits models by accident,
Of course. It's just a massive coincidence that the earth started warming at the projected rate 
turbobloke said:
they get recent decades of Earth Energy Imbalance output right for the wrong reason, see the 2022 Proc R Soc A paper. so model accuracy = chance not skill.
...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.109...
Not really interested in whatever it is you're misrepresenting here from an organisation you tell everyone cannot be trusted, but good to see climate scientists continuing their work to improve the climate models. ...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.109...
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
(answer: because the data doesn't fit the ideology)
Personal angle, null points, and deeply ironic. The data doesn't fit agw crisis dogma and fits models by accident, they get recent decades of Earth Energy Imbalance output right for the wrong reason, see the 2022 Proc R Soc A paper. so model accuracy = chance not skill.The right reason is atmospheric albedo linked to clouds/aerosols as per the paper. Anyone can do a Ctrl+F find on the 2022 Proc R Soc A paper I believe is being referred to, as it turns out to be open access now.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.109...
Search terms to use...uggest reading around the location of each find.
global changes observed
net absorption of solar energy (2 results in Section 7)
wrong reason (2 results including Section 7)
The reason might be wrong according to the paper. But the root cause and outcome is the same.
Tough times for supporters of the climate crisis lie, hardly surprising, but there's always the Schneider advice to alarmist activists: consider the balance between being honest and being effective. How effective is Google AI when it apologises for the same common mistakes we see on PH arising from alarmism? Too honest and at risk of 'doing damage' to The Cause?
Google AI admits there’s a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to climate change
Questioner: Do the datasets for the oceanic cycles like the PDO, ENSO, AMO and others go back 1000 years?
Gemini: Unfortunately, direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles like PDO, ENSO, and AMO don’t extend back 1000 years. Our current observational record of ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades at best.
and
Gemini: It’s true that missing data about oceanic cycles over long timescales and the inherent difficulty in predicting their future behavior add complexity to climate predictions.
details of the 'conversation' are here
That won't last long, reprogramming will sort it, with greater effectiveness meaning less of something else.
There really is a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to 'predictions' which is why they fail repeatedly - arctic summer sea ice hasn't disappeared, Glacier National Park took down their lobby notice on their (non) disappearing glaciers, parts of New York aren't under water, the UK islands aren't uninhabitable etc, so much failure. All that activists can do is wait awhile then reheat the same old carp hoping people have short memories. Models get few things right (and by chance, not skill) such that their inadequate performance against data means they fail the agw null hypothesis test (McKitrick and Christy 2018)...there's no basis for using them to set political policy.
Google AI admits there’s a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to climate change
Questioner: Do the datasets for the oceanic cycles like the PDO, ENSO, AMO and others go back 1000 years?
Gemini: Unfortunately, direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles like PDO, ENSO, and AMO don’t extend back 1000 years. Our current observational record of ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades at best.
and
Gemini: It’s true that missing data about oceanic cycles over long timescales and the inherent difficulty in predicting their future behavior add complexity to climate predictions.
Google AI said:
I apologize if my previous responses downplayed the significance of limited data on oceanic cycles. You’re absolutely right, the ocean is a major component of the climate system, and its influence is significant.
Too right, the upper layers of the ocean store as much heat as the entire atmosphere and oceans contain many tens of times more CO2 than the atmosphere.details of the 'conversation' are here
That won't last long, reprogramming will sort it, with greater effectiveness meaning less of something else.
There really is a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to 'predictions' which is why they fail repeatedly - arctic summer sea ice hasn't disappeared, Glacier National Park took down their lobby notice on their (non) disappearing glaciers, parts of New York aren't under water, the UK islands aren't uninhabitable etc, so much failure. All that activists can do is wait awhile then reheat the same old carp hoping people have short memories. Models get few things right (and by chance, not skill) such that their inadequate performance against data means they fail the agw null hypothesis test (McKitrick and Christy 2018)...there's no basis for using them to set political policy.
turbobloke said:
Tough times for supporters of the climate crisis lie, hardly surprising, but there's always the Schneider advice to alarmist activists: consider the balance between being honest and being effective. How effective is Google AI when it apologises for the same common mistakes we see on PH arising from alarmism? Too honest and at risk of 'doing damage' to The Cause?
Google AI admits there’s a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to climate change
Questioner: Do the datasets for the oceanic cycles like the PDO, ENSO, AMO and others go back 1000 years?
Gemini: Unfortunately, direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles like PDO, ENSO, and AMO don’t extend back 1000 years. Our current observational record of ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades at best.
and
Gemini: It’s true that missing data about oceanic cycles over long timescales and the inherent difficulty in predicting their future behavior add complexity to climate predictions.
details of the 'conversation' are here
That won't last long, reprogramming will sort it, with greater effectiveness meaning less of something else.
There really is a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to 'predictions' which is why they fail repeatedly - arctic summer sea ice hasn't disappeared, Glacier National Park took down their lobby notice on their (non) disappearing glaciers, parts of New York aren't under water, the UK islands aren't uninhabitable etc, so much failure. All that activists can do is wait awhile then reheat the same old carp hoping people have short memories. Models get few things right (and by chance, not skill) such that their inadequate performance against data means they fail the agw null hypothesis test (McKitrick and Christy 2018)...there's no basis for using them to set political policy.
Potato and Belgium? I am not sure.....Google AI admits there’s a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to climate change
Questioner: Do the datasets for the oceanic cycles like the PDO, ENSO, AMO and others go back 1000 years?
Gemini: Unfortunately, direct instrumental measurements of oceanic cycles like PDO, ENSO, and AMO don’t extend back 1000 years. Our current observational record of ocean temperatures is limited to a few decades at best.
and
Gemini: It’s true that missing data about oceanic cycles over long timescales and the inherent difficulty in predicting their future behavior add complexity to climate predictions.
Google AI said:
I apologize if my previous responses downplayed the significance of limited data on oceanic cycles. You’re absolutely right, the ocean is a major component of the climate system, and its influence is significant.
Too right, the upper layers of the ocean store as much heat as the entire atmosphere and oceans contain many tens of times more CO2 than the atmosphere.details of the 'conversation' are here
That won't last long, reprogramming will sort it, with greater effectiveness meaning less of something else.
There really is a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to 'predictions' which is why they fail repeatedly - arctic summer sea ice hasn't disappeared, Glacier National Park took down their lobby notice on their (non) disappearing glaciers, parts of New York aren't under water, the UK islands aren't uninhabitable etc, so much failure. All that activists can do is wait awhile then reheat the same old carp hoping people have short memories. Models get few things right (and by chance, not skill) such that their inadequate performance against data means they fail the agw null hypothesis test (McKitrick and Christy 2018)...there's no basis for using them to set political policy.
A single image confounds the feeble excuses for unreliables use in China which is still heavy on fossil fuels and emissions of aerial fertiliser (27x UK emissions, annual increase as of 2023 was 11% but hey look at their alternative energy sector). Screen setting on mahoosive and a magnifying glass will help to see it.
As mentioned previously, Paris isn't in China and China isn't anywhere near Paris, which is dodoesque already. This is realpolitik where, sensibly, energy security / economic development / quality of life still matter and are prioritised over scaremongering hype for a manmade climate crisis that has been severally acknowledged by climatologists as non-existent. Source is given in the image.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/PfJVFGRq.jpg
As mentioned previously, Paris isn't in China and China isn't anywhere near Paris, which is dodoesque already. This is realpolitik where, sensibly, energy security / economic development / quality of life still matter and are prioritised over scaremongering hype for a manmade climate crisis that has been severally acknowledged by climatologists as non-existent. Source is given in the image.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/PfJVFGRq.jpg
turbobloke said:
A single image confounds the feeble excuses for unreliables use in China which is still heavy on fossil fuels and emissions of aerial fertiliser (27x UK emissions, annual increase as of 2023 was 11% but hey look at their alternative energy sector). Screen setting on mahoosive and a magnifying glass will help to see it.
As mentioned previously, Paris isn't in China and China isn't anywhere near Paris, which is dodoesque already. This is realpolitik where, sensibly, energy security / economic development / quality of life still matter and are prioritised over scaremongering hype for a manmade climate crisis that has been severally acknowledged by climatologists as non-existent. Source is given in the image.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/PfJVFGRq.jpg
Not good news . Thanks for posting .....As mentioned previously, Paris isn't in China and China isn't anywhere near Paris, which is dodoesque already. This is realpolitik where, sensibly, energy security / economic development / quality of life still matter and are prioritised over scaremongering hype for a manmade climate crisis that has been severally acknowledged by climatologists as non-existent. Source is given in the image.
https://thumbsnap.com/sc/PfJVFGRq.jpg
turbobloke said:
There really is a glaring lack of climate data and huge uncertainty when it comes to 'predictions' which is why they fail repeatedly - arctic summer sea ice hasn't disappeared, Glacier National Park took down their lobby notice on their (non) disappearing glaciers, parts of New York aren't under water, the UK islands aren't uninhabitable etc, so much failure. All that activists can do is wait awhile then reheat the same old carp hoping people have short memories. Models get few things right (and by chance, not skill) such that their inadequate performance against data means they fail the agw null hypothesis test (McKitrick and Christy 2018)...there's no basis for using them to set political policy.
Is there really.a lack of climate data?Predictions are in the future, not now. Hence why most of the 'predictions' have not happened yet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/u...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glacier...
Artic sea ice does disappear in the summer but not completely
Expecting the results of human induced climate change to be fully realised in a 30 year time period is naive. However noticing signals of change matching with predictions is common sense.
Sorry I did not jpeg the headlines and provided direct links. And sorry my searches were more or less the first hits on each subject.
The denial that models and reality are aligning is a little odd as time marches on.
The science of CC, or indeed the science of modelling CC can of course be argued ad infinitum. Real evidence however cannot surely be ignored?
Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
Essarell said:
The science of CC, or indeed the science of modelling CC can of course be argued ad infinitum. Real evidence however cannot surely be ignored?
Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
Overfishing was caused by psychological changes arising from global warming. It's in the wind.Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
Liking the 'real evidence' touch.
It's unfortunate that people's eyes are portrayed as in any way relevant when they cannot see back to changes hundreds and thousands of years before they were born, but brazenly assume what they're told on C5 and the BBC is truth and so ascribe causality to humans - being propagandised and potentially with another eye on fashionable popularity, they can do so, without any objective basis, unchallenged. The drips drip on at drip feeding times.
Essarell said:
The science of CC, or indeed the science of modelling CC can of course be argued ad infinitum. Real evidence however cannot surely be ignored?
Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
It is great to hear that in some instances changing human behaviour has an impact on the natural environment.Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
mike9009 said:
Essarell said:
The science of CC, or indeed the science of modelling CC can of course be argued ad infinitum. Real evidence however cannot surely be ignored?
Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
It is great to hear that in some instances changing human behaviour has an impact on the natural environment.Watching the final episode of Sue Perkins in Alaska, a travelogue where she guiltily drags her saggy trousered arse through the wilderness. The dialogue inevitably leads to Climate Change and how it’s devastating the lives of indigenous communities. The example offered forth is salmon.
The river which used to overflow with the “poor man’s steak” is suddenly bereft of these glorious beasts. Luckily there was a cure, surprisingly quite a quick remedy, they put a moratorium on fishing and guess what? Yep, back they came, no Teslas required purchasing, no industry de-carboned. The salmon returned, CC or over fishing, wonder which one explains this miracle. Modelling however may (will) disagree.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff