0·
1 month ago… the billionaire proof version of Bluesky is … Mastodon.
troed
HW/FW security researcher & Demoscene elder.
I started having arguments online back on Fidonet and Usenet. I’m too tired to care now.
- 0 Posts
- 19 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
No, I didn’t say that. Check who you’re quoting.
Yes, as you quoted, forest (mis-)management is a bigger factor than climate change.
Now check the claims made in what we’re discussing.
(Links a relevant paper in Nature from 2024 - gets downvoted. “Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.”)
… but if they’re caused by something else then? Not everything is due to climate change. In this case there’s plenty of science done on how our forest management causes these extreme fires.
Yeah it’s all in proving
Woodall’s delivery to the defendants [Disney]
Putting out every little forest fire in an eco system where natural fires were commonplace is the cause of these humongous fires we can’t put out.
Climate change isn’t the main culprit here.
“[…] attempting to suppress all wildfires necessarily means that fires will burn with more severe and less diverse ecological impacts, with burned area increasing at faster rates than expected from fuel accumulation or climate change. Over a human lifespan, the modeled impacts of the suppression bias exceed those from fuel accumulation or climate change alone, suggesting that suppression may exert a significant and underappreciated influence on patterns of fire globally”
Bit of a weird take. Yes, if we don’t talk about global temperature then some parts will be cooler and some will be hotter.
tldr; Some regions will reach 3 degrees faster and some slower, by 2060
My guess is that I’m the only person in this thread that reads the IPCC reports. “Maybe at the end of the century” is way different from “the next few years”.
(PS: The IPCC also states that only half of the reduction of the ice is due to human emissions, so, don’t go buying property at sea level regardless of how well we do at stopping said emissions)
To me? It’s what you find in IPCC AR6. You read the IPCC reports right?
For stabilised global warming of 1.5°C, an approximately 1% chance of a given September being sea ice free at the end of century is projected; for stabilised warming at a 2°C increase, this rises to 10–35% (high confidence).
Oh I do. That’s the whole point. This whole thread is about doomists screaming about what’s not the current scientific consensus.
No, this is not the statement I refer to. Youtube link exists in a comment for all to verify.
Do note the article is about a comment in 2009 while I describe something from 2008. You would expect him to make that mistake once - not repeatedly :) Feel free to check the Youtube clip. The words “quick fact” are relevant.
I was being nice to Gore. The polar ice cap includes a lot more than just the summer sea ice.
It’s the difference between scientific consensus and doomists.
Scientific consensus isn’t that the north pole sea will be ice free in the summer in the next few years.
Pretty amazing to see all these downvotes on a purely factual statement. Watch it yourselves:
I was in the audience at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008 when Al Gore said on stage that according to scientists this would happen “within five years”.
Threat modelling for a possible future is different from threat modelling for today.
The Netherlands kept good records of which religion a person belonged to in the 1930s, to be able to swiftly fulfil any possible religious requirements on burial services. A nice service.
The nazis thought so too, a few years later.