|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 25, 2023 6:32:54 GMT
Well its hardly a 'nonsense graph' just because you don't understand it. The clear implication is that 2022 is one of those grey lines. It highlights how 'abnormal' 2023 is within the dataset, and how rapid that change has been. Which of course is precisely what has been said in the various articles it has been published in. If you really want to see 2022, I guess you could look at this variant of the graph, which explicitely calls out 2022: Antartic Sea Ice Extent
Attribution to this article: national Snow and Ice Data CentreWhich you might find interesting, or you might just prefer to dismiss as more "scaremongering" by penguin loving liberal propogandists. Even if I was on your collective sides I would not be using a graph like that. It is showing all recent years up to and including 2022 to be broadly the same and then a big jump to badness in 2023. Surely what you want to show is a gradual, albeit with considerable variance, path downwards over many decades?Uhh, no. Sorry, but It was you in effect said you didn't understand it. As to the second point, only if a) it is gradual, and that is therefore the point you are trying to illustrate and b) there are always multiple different ways of showing the same data which can highlight different points. The fact that, as stated by the graphic, 2022 (and preceding years) is included in the grey line "historic range" area, it is abundantly clear from the first graph that 2023 is a significant outlier. Which is a major thrust of the point the articles it has been published in have been making, (that 2023 is a major outlier and that change is happening more rapidly than expected). If your intent was to debate - or indeed simply enquire - then perhaps the starting point is not to declare the whole thing as nonsense, and do so after declaring the mention of impacts of ice decrease as "more propaganda".
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 25, 2023 6:46:25 GMT
Well its hardly a 'nonsense graph' just because you don't understand it. The clear implication is that 2022 is one of those grey lines. It highlights how 'abnormal' 2023 is within the dataset, and how rapid that change has been. Which of course is precisely what has been said in the various articles it has been published in. If you really want to see 2022, I guess you could look at this variant of the graph, which explicitely calls out 2022: Antartic Sea Ice Extent
Attribution to this article: national Snow and Ice Data CentreWhich you might find interesting, or you might just prefer to dismiss as more "scaremongering" by penguin loving liberal propogandists. Ha! If you don't know how to debate someone tell them they don't understand. Even if I was on your collective sides I would not be using a graph like that. It is showing all recent years up to and including 2022 to be broadly the same and then a big jump to badness in 2023. Surely what you want to show is a gradual, albeit with considerable variance, path downwards over many decades? Thats because there is a big jump earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151692/exceptionally-low-antarctic-sea-iceBasically slowly increasing until 2014, then falling to new low in 2017, fluctuates until another new low in 2022, then this year a big drop. At the moment, there isnt a clear explanation where it has dropped so much Meanwhile there is also a big hole in the ozone layer above Antartica as well, which is also bucking the trend as it had been decreasing in size. This is due to a large underwater volcanic eruption increasing the amount of water vapour in the atomosphere, meaning more ice crystals for CFCs to stick to.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 25, 2023 6:53:35 GMT
Ha! If you don't know how to debate someone tell them they don't understand. <cough> "nonsense graph"? Perhaps you ought to take that up with the actual measurements, as taken by nsidc.org/homeQuick question for you, michaelc - in your opinion, is anthropogenic climate change... a: real and b: a threat to the planet and all those living on it?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Aug 25, 2023 7:50:14 GMT
Surely what you want to show is a gradual, albeit with considerable variance, path downwards over many decades? Why? Not everything in life, or existence for that matter, is smoothly continuous over time. You show what the data shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Sept 15, 2023 11:34:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 15, 2023 14:55:47 GMT
[...] It's a shame climate change and the immediate future of the planet has been adopted by the right wing as a 'culture war' issue. But that standpoint is as always, that if a normal person (or "liberal") would support it, we oppose it even if it means our children burn in the same hell we created to burn those liberals. It's an even bigger shame that your natural bedfellows, the socialist/communist regimes like China and Russia, continue to pollute the planet far worse than the UK ever could, even if we took no further action. In 2021, the UK's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 335 Megatons, a reduction of 12% since 2017. In 2021, China's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 12,466 Megatons, an increase of 15% since 2017. China's increase alone during those four years is 4.7 times our entire year's emissions. Unlike the US and Europe, the big offenders China, Russia, India and Iran are not even trying to reduce. I suspect your right wing (and others) are utterly fed up with us cutting our own throats while others around the globe just continue to mug us off. Figures from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 15, 2023 15:03:26 GMT
[...] It's a shame climate change and the immediate future of the planet has been adopted by the right wing as a 'culture war' issue. But that standpoint is as always, that if a normal person (or "liberal") would support it, we oppose it even if it means our children burn in the same hell we created to burn those liberals. It's an even bigger shame that your natural bedfellows, the socialist/communist regimes like China and Russia, continue to pollute the planet far worse than the UK ever could, even if we took no further action. In 2021, the UK's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 335 Megatons, a reduction of 12% since 2017. In 2021, China's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 12,466 Megatons, an increase of 15% since 2017. China's increase alone during those four years is 4.7 times our entire year's emissions. Unlike the US and Europe, the big offenders China, Russia, India and Iran are not even trying to reduce. I suspect your right wing (and others) are utterly fed up with us cutting our own throats while others around the globe just continue to mug us off. Figures from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionsI generally agree with this but would also be interesting to divide your figures by the populations in each country to get a more apples to apples comparison instead of pea to pineapple if you will....
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Sept 15, 2023 15:10:08 GMT
It's an even bigger shame that your natural bedfellows, the socialist/communist regimes like China and Russia... That's a pretty cheap shot Berny.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 15, 2023 15:12:40 GMT
It's an even bigger shame that your natural bedfellows, the socialist/communist regimes like China and Russia, continue to pollute the planet far worse than the UK ever could, even if we took no further action. In 2021, the UK's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 335 Megatons, a reduction of 12% since 2017. In 2021, China's entire fossil CO 2 emissions amounted to 12,466 Megatons, an increase of 15% since 2017. China's increase alone during those four years is 4.7 times our entire year's emissions. Unlike the US and Europe, the big offenders China, Russia, India and Iran are not even trying to reduce. I suspect your right wing (and others) are utterly fed up with us cutting our own throats while others around the globe just continue to mug us off. Figures from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissionsI generally agree with this but would also be interesting to divide your figures by the populations in each country to get a more apples to apples comparison instead of pea to pineapple if you will.... Funnily enough, I was expecting adrianc to make the 'per capita' argument. You've beaten him to it.  The problem is, the planet doesn't care about per capita, it only cares about the absolute emissions into the atmosphere. And whether you take per capita or absolute values as the baseline, China and Russia should still be matching our 12% reduction, rather than annually increasing their emissions. It's clear that they really don't care, so I can understand why a lot of people in a tiny minnow like the UK wouldn't care either.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 15, 2023 15:14:00 GMT
It's an even bigger shame that your natural bedfellows, the socialist/communist regimes like China and Russia... That's a pretty cheap shot Berny. But 'adopted by the right wing' wasn't? Come on, fair's fair.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 15, 2023 15:15:57 GMT
I generally agree with this but would also be interesting to divide your figures by the populations in each country to get a more apples to apples comparison instead of pea to pineapple if you will.... Funnily enough, I was expecting adrianc to make the 'per capita' argument. You've beaten him to it. The problem is, the planet doesn't care about per capita, it only cares about the absolute emissions into the atmosphere. And whether you take per capita or absolute values as the baseline, China and Russia should still be matching our 12% reduction, rather than annually increasing their emissions. It's clear that they really don't care, so I can understand why a lot of people in a tiny minnow like the UK wouldn't care either. I wasn't making a point by asking you to do the (trivial) maths. I just wanted to see them here. I genuinlly don't know the values and am too lazy to reach for my calculator or open calc.....Both the pineapple and the apples comparisons are interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 15, 2023 15:21:02 GMT
Funnily enough, I was expecting adrianc to make the 'per capita' argument. You've beaten him to it. The problem is, the planet doesn't care about per capita, it only cares about the absolute emissions into the atmosphere. And whether you take per capita or absolute values as the baseline, China and Russia should still be matching our 12% reduction, rather than annually increasing their emissions. It's clear that they really don't care, so I can understand why a lot of people in a tiny minnow like the UK wouldn't care either. I wasn't making a point by asking you to do the (trivial) maths. I just wanted to see them here. I genuinlly don't know the values and am too lazy to reach for my calculator or open calc.....Both the pineapple and the apples comparisons are interesting. No calculator necessary. See my link, 3 columns from the end. Per capita values there, for what they're worth. China still exceeds the UK.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Sept 15, 2023 15:29:22 GMT
That's a pretty cheap shot Berny. But 'adopted by the right wing' wasn't? Come on, fair's fair. hhmmm, I don't think "adopted by the right wing" is that unfair actually. There is certainly a significant overlap between the sets of people who consider themselves to be:- 1. "Right wing". 2. "Climate change deniers". 3. "Anti-woke". And that is a very, very long way from somebody who considers themselves to be left-leaning (in a Western democratic sense) aligning themselves with Moscow / Beijing. It also detracts from the argument at hand, and the points you made about China et al being massive polluters / the West putting itself (possibly) at a competitive disadvantage by trying to green its constituent economies, which are valid and worth discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Sept 15, 2023 15:45:03 GMT
But 'adopted by the right wing' wasn't? Come on, fair's fair. hhmmm, I don't think "adopted by the right wing" is that unfair actually. There is certainly a significant overlap between the sets of people who consider themselves to be:- 1. "Right wing". 2. "Climate change deniers". 3. "Anti-woke". And that is a very, very long way from somebody who considers themselves to be left-leaning (in a Western democratic sense) aligning themselves with Moscow / Beijing. It also detracts from the argument at hand, and the points you made about China et al being massive polluters / the West putting itself (possibly) at a competitive disadvantage by trying to green its constituent economies, which are valid and worth discussing. Firstly, apologies if my slightly tongue-in-cheek opening statement might have caused offence (and I've already 'liked' your comment pointing that out). Do note, however, the Captain's statement that you can be "right wing" or you can be "a normal person"... that is no less offensive! Not sure I agree the categorisation above though. There are many leaning slightly right of centre who do accept the climate science (self included). There are also many in the northern labour heartlands who are vehemently anti-woke. I'm not convinced this lends itself to generalising.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Sept 15, 2023 15:54:54 GMT
|
|
