Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
Here’s one of 9 papers released in just the last 24 hours concerning AGW and its effects/possible consequences. Yes, this one REALLY is from 2021. 
Evidence of Antarctic glacier's tipping point confirmed for first time
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-evidence-antarctic-g...
Extract:
Researchers have confirmed for the first time that Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica could cross tipping points, leading to a rapid and irreversible retreat which would have significant consequences for global sea level.
Pine Island Glacier is a region of fast-flowing ice draining an area of West Antarctica approximately two thirds the size of the UK. The glacier is a particular cause for concern as it is losing more ice than any other glacier in Antarctica.
Currently, Pine Island Glacier together with its neighbouring Thwaites glacier are responsible for about 10% of the ongoing increase in global sea level.
Scientists have argued for some time that this region of Antarctica could reach a tipping point and undergo an irreversible retreat from which it could not recover. Such a retreat, once started, could lead to the collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by over three metres.
While the general possibility of such a tipping point within ice sheets has been raised before, showing that Pine Island Glacier has the potential to enter unstable retreat is a very different question.
Now, researchers from Northumbria University have shown, for the first time, that this is indeed the case.
Their findings are published in leading journal, The Cryosphere.
The title implies certainty that is not reflected in the body of the article. Dishonest.Evidence of Antarctic glacier's tipping point confirmed for first time
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-evidence-antarctic-g...
Extract:
Researchers have confirmed for the first time that Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica could cross tipping points, leading to a rapid and irreversible retreat which would have significant consequences for global sea level.
Pine Island Glacier is a region of fast-flowing ice draining an area of West Antarctica approximately two thirds the size of the UK. The glacier is a particular cause for concern as it is losing more ice than any other glacier in Antarctica.
Currently, Pine Island Glacier together with its neighbouring Thwaites glacier are responsible for about 10% of the ongoing increase in global sea level.
Scientists have argued for some time that this region of Antarctica could reach a tipping point and undergo an irreversible retreat from which it could not recover. Such a retreat, once started, could lead to the collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains enough ice to raise global sea level by over three metres.
While the general possibility of such a tipping point within ice sheets has been raised before, showing that Pine Island Glacier has the potential to enter unstable retreat is a very different question.
Now, researchers from Northumbria University have shown, for the first time, that this is indeed the case.
Their findings are published in leading journal, The Cryosphere.
The title says ‘evidence’ and the article says...
Using a state-of-the-art ice flow model developed by Northumbria's glaciology research group, the team have developed methods that allow tipping points within ice sheets to be identified.
For Pine Island Glacier, their study shows that the glacier has at least three distinct tipping points. The third and final event, triggered by ocean temperatures increasing by 1.2C, leads to an irreversible retreat of the entire glacier.
The researchers say that long-term warming and shoaling trends in Circumpolar Deep Water, in combination with changing wind patterns in the Amundsen Sea, could expose Pine Island Glacier's ice shelf to warmer waters for longer periods of time, making temperature changes of this magnitude increasingly likely.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Sebastian Rosier, is a Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow in Northumbria's Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences. He specialises in the modelling processes controlling ice flow in Antarctica with the goal of understanding how the continent will contribute to future sea level rise.
Dr. Rosier explained: "The potential for this region to cross a tipping point has been raised in the past, but our study is the first to confirm that Pine Island Glacier does indeed cross these critical thresholds.
Sounds like ‘evidence’ to me. Not proof, obvs.
Using a state-of-the-art ice flow model developed by Northumbria's glaciology research group, the team have developed methods that allow tipping points within ice sheets to be identified.
For Pine Island Glacier, their study shows that the glacier has at least three distinct tipping points. The third and final event, triggered by ocean temperatures increasing by 1.2C, leads to an irreversible retreat of the entire glacier.
The researchers say that long-term warming and shoaling trends in Circumpolar Deep Water, in combination with changing wind patterns in the Amundsen Sea, could expose Pine Island Glacier's ice shelf to warmer waters for longer periods of time, making temperature changes of this magnitude increasingly likely.
The lead author of the study, Dr. Sebastian Rosier, is a Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellow in Northumbria's Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences. He specialises in the modelling processes controlling ice flow in Antarctica with the goal of understanding how the continent will contribute to future sea level rise.
Dr. Rosier explained: "The potential for this region to cross a tipping point has been raised in the past, but our study is the first to confirm that Pine Island Glacier does indeed cross these critical thresholds.
Sounds like ‘evidence’ to me. Not proof, obvs.
Gadgetmac said:
Yeah, I was waiting for your usual one-line word game my little climate change denier
But its true, the body of the text used the term "could", that is not the certainty that is conveyed in the "we are all doomed " headlines, its just the same as thousands of similar reports that failed over time and were forgotten . The Arctic missed its predicted ice free status many times. PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yeah, I was waiting for your usual one-line word game my little climate change denier
But its true, the body of the text used the term "could", that is not the certainty that is conveyed in the "we are all doomed " headlines, its just the same as thousands of similar reports that failed over time and were forgotten . The Arctic missed its predicted ice free status many times. 
Anyway, where’s the “we are all doomed” headline then?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yeah, I was waiting for your usual one-line word game my little climate change denier
You keep calling me a climate change denier, even though I’ve written many times on here that I accept AGW. Why do you have such trouble accepting that?Are your posts balanced in number in their criticism of bona-fide peer reviewed publications and research vs the sceptics posts in here and on the politics thread? Or are they all anti the science posts and generally siding with the wing nuts?
You can say what you like about your stance on AGW but your posting history betrays you.
Gadgetmac said:
Are your posts balanced in number in their criticism of bona-fide peer reviewed publications and research vs the sceptics posts in here and on the politics thread? Or are they all anti the science posts and generally siding with the wing nuts?
Wing nuts..? Don't think he sides with Dr Mann, might be wrong...mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
Are your posts balanced in number in their criticism of bona-fide peer reviewed publications and research vs the sceptics posts in here and on the politics thread? Or are they all anti the science posts and generally siding with the wing nuts?
Wing nuts..? Don't think he sides with Dr Mann, might be wrong...Why does this have to be a “climate crisis”, end of the works scenario?
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
Cliffe60 said:
Why does this have to be a “climate crisis”, end of the works scenario?
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
Many of us ponder the same questions. All we're met with is doom, gloom and cataclysm.More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
Cliffe60 said:
Why does this have to be a “climate crisis”, end of the works scenario?
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
That bold bit is politics old bean so ---> https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
The old 'warmer weather equals more (edible) crops' trope has little evidence behind it at the moment as warmer weather has a lot of downsides (increased pests, increased evaporation, droughts, flooding etc etc etc)
No doubt there might be a few plants that flourish I'm just not sure how nutritious a yucca salad is.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Extract:
Temperature is a primary factor affecting the rate of plant development. Warmer temperatures expected with climate change and the potential for more extreme temperature events will impact plant productivity. Pollination is one of the most sensitive phenological stages to temperature extremes across all species and during this developmental stage temperature extremes would greatly affect production. Few adaptation strategies are available to cope with temperature extremes at this developmental stage other than to select for plants which shed pollen during the cooler periods of the day or are indeterminate so flowering occurs over a longer period of the growing season.
In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development; however, there was no effect on leaf area or vegetative biomass compared to normal temperatures. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80−90% from a normal temperature regime. Temperature effects are increased by water deficits and excess soil water demonstrating that understanding the interaction of temperature and water will be needed to develop more effective adaptation strategies to offset the impacts of greater temperature extreme events associated with a changing climate.
The National farmers union aren't happy about Climate Change either which is a surprise as they have a lot to gain from increased yields...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2192674-clima...
“Farmers and growers are used to dealing with fluctuations in the weather but if we have two or three extreme years in a row it has the potential to put growers out of business,” says Lee Abbey of the National Farmers Union in the report.
Cliffe60 said:
Why does this have to be a “climate crisis”, end of the works scenario?
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
I should have said: Sub-Saharan africa has the weather - warmer, wetter, stormier - that the doom-mongers say is coming here. It is warm, loads of water and very, very fertile for the right crops. A lot of work has been done to try and wash over those facts. Also no need to burn energy to heat homes. Less clothes required. Summers are great for staycations. It's all good for us!More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Why does this have to be a “climate crisis”, end of the works scenario?
More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
That bold bit is politics old bean so ---> https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...More CO2 , warmer and wetter weather should enable us to grow more crops to feed the world.
Why can’t we work around it and with it instead if against it?
Oh, that way we can’t tax and control people as we can by current methods, silly me!
The old 'warmer weather equals more (edible) crops' trope has little evidence behind it at the moment as warmer weather has a lot of downsides (increased pests, increased evaporation, droughts, flooding etc etc etc)
No doubt there might be a few plants that flourish I'm just not sure how nutritious a yucca salad is.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Extract:
Temperature is a primary factor affecting the rate of plant development. Warmer temperatures expected with climate change and the potential for more extreme temperature events will impact plant productivity. Pollination is one of the most sensitive phenological stages to temperature extremes across all species and during this developmental stage temperature extremes would greatly affect production. Few adaptation strategies are available to cope with temperature extremes at this developmental stage other than to select for plants which shed pollen during the cooler periods of the day or are indeterminate so flowering occurs over a longer period of the growing season.
In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development; however, there was no effect on leaf area or vegetative biomass compared to normal temperatures. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80?90% from a normal temperature regime. Temperature effects are increased by water deficits and excess soil water demonstrating that understanding the interaction of temperature and water will be needed to develop more effective adaptation strategies to offset the impacts of greater temperature extreme events associated with a changing climate.
The National farmers union aren't happy about Climate Change either which is a surprise as they have a lot to gain from increased yields...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2192674-clima...
“Farmers and growers are used to dealing with fluctuations in the weather but if we have two or three extreme years in a row it has the potential to put growers out of business,” says Lee Abbey of the National Farmers Union in the report.
As for floods and drought we need to be able to control and store rainfall better. I’m not saying these are easy things to do, but they are things could be possibilities.
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
.....Trope.....
If your understanding of the English language is a bit dodgy, how are we supposed to have confidence in your understanding of the science, old bean? Miriam Webster....
Definition of trope (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH
b : a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ
the usual horror movie tropes
If your comprehension skills aren’t up to scratch there’s always night school.
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff