Russian Academy of Sciences says climate change is caused regional variations in the ozone layer as the Southern and Eastern Pacific oceans have cooled.
Russian Academy of Sciences says climate change is caused regional variations in the ozone layer as the Southern and Eastern Pacific oceans have cooled.
Personally I think if China and other AES states agree with this, we should join in as well. Right now I read these articles with healthy scepticism and I am curious on your views. These are the ones that I found interesting. Russia may present an alternate take this December, an interesting time to be alive.
Edit: I shouldn't have started with such a hollow article. The dismissal of increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts due to warming is not something I support. Here's something better that shows that the current model fails to explain the strong cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and East Pacific.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article219438.html
^ Explains that the Russian Academy of Sciences has a different account on climate change that will be presented this year. The IPCC has a monopoly on climate science, the IPCC was founded by Thatcher as a reaction to striking coal workers and is a political organization.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article163379.html Ecology of war
https://www.voltairenet.org/article164791.html Market ecology
https://www.voltairenet.org/article164792.html Financial ecology
A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don't want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.
Also, are we really pretending the West actually bases policies on it's own climate change science anyway? To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.
I'm skeptical.
A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don’t want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.
Yeah, that' why I am waiting for some confirmation.
To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.
What's the contradiction in that? They can emit CO2 while complaining about China doing the same.
CO2 emissions as a greenhouse gas create a contradiction between immediate productivity and future productivity. Why would they promote a theory that would hurt economic productivity for an imaginary threat to future productivity? There's no good reason to invent this theory from nothing when they could have invented a different theory that wouldn't hurt their own ability to exploit natural resources and produce energy and burn fuel. They could have invented a different lie that wouldn't hurt their own interests and vassals.
It only makes sense as real science, because the West is being forced to reckon with a real threat to its own future.
I'm a biologist.
Ten years ago, if someone came to me with these "oh but here's one guy saying it might not be man-made" or "oh but the consequences might not be that bad" or "but hey maybe it's not even true" I'd spend a while trying to educate that person.
Nowadays? The talking phase is over. No amount of data works. No massive mountains of evidence works for you people.
Global warming is real, the consequences are dire, people in my field have significantly increased depression and suicide rates, and yes it is fucking man made.
This isn't expeculative - this is called the Anthropocene mass extinction event and it's happening right now - at an accelerating rate.
It's not the Anthropocene. Global warming didn't start hundreds of thousands of years ago when the modern human species evolved. It didn't start when humans dropped the atomic bomb either, which is the geologic strata that the so-called Anthropocene is supposedly marked. This is a modern phenomenon that was created by colonialism and capitalist resource exploitation and industrialization, but not so modern that it only started within less than 100 years! It didn't start with automobiles or electricity either. It started with deforesting Turtle Island, which also clearly shows up in the geologic record.
All this naming convention does is obscure and mystify the true cause of deforestation and carbon emissions and mass extinction. It proposes blaming all humans equally for the destruction of our habitat, when the reality is very few humans are actually to blame.
I think the capitalocene is much more accurate.
I am not a full fledged climate skeptic, I want a discussion. That's why I prefaced it with the title. Sorry for being annoying.
The world is generally warming I don't deny that, but what do you have to say to the Russian academy of Sciences saying it's mostly caused by regional variations in the ozone layer not CO2.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Definitely not climate deniers) https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
I understand that the current theory is a well-regarded mainstream theory but Russia’s theory of climate change attempts to account for these abnormalities. So I wanted to discuss this.
There are no alternate explanations because the explanations that we have make sense. Unless you have reasons to be skeptical I don't see the point of exercising skepticism for the sake of it. You can wait for the grand reveal of this alternate theory at the COP if you want but you are likely going to be disappointed.
Edit: my bad. Looks like the theory has already been publicised according to the linked telegram post. I can't assess the merits of it though.
The current theory does make sense but there are parts of the world that are cooling despite that being contrary to modeling.
Even the mainstream majority believe that the climate models are wrong as cooling has been measured in the Pacific.
The Russian theory attempts to account for this, although like you mentioned, I am not sure how good it is.
This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that**** end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. ****These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
**>She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted. **
I will just add that the no climate emergency declaration is most likely a nothingburger. From its signatories almost none of them are climate scientists. The two Nobel laureates that have signed it are washed up physicists.
As you said the Russian theory does not invalidate current models. If it is correct it will augment existing models so that predictions conform to real world observations.
If you agree with the the first paragraph then you will agree that there is no reason to be sceptical of climate change.
Lemme break down Clintel for you:
This is some pseudoscience garbage that has no merit. All of their arguments are the same ancient, tired ones that your moron conservative uncle has been saying for thirty years. When your scientific document's primary basis just says "i mean but where's the proof that it's anthropogenic though?" without any additional insight beyond parroting a 2001 Fox News chyron, it's not good science. They've decided that climate change does not exist, and are trying to work back from there.
Quacks will frequently try to tell you that their skill and knowledge in one field of science will make them an expert at everything. If a physicist tries to tell you something about climate change, trans people, or capitalism, you should regard their opinion the same as you'd regard a trucker or a glassblower's. They have no additional training, understanding, or insight on these subjects simply because they're very skilled at something that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Looking through the signatories, I see physicists, geologists, computer scientists, and exactly zero climate scientists.
Also, this organization is tied closely to the Koch-funded Atlas Network, with the overwhelming majority of their signatories and ambassadors being members of the Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, or other associated groups. Their website is a blog and virtually all of the media listed there are either very poorly researched essays with charts that show the exact opposite of the claims they make, or bios on random signatories and their flat earth wives whose accreditations are mostly just "I went to college for geology in the 70s and I teach computer science at a college you've never heard of."
VoltaireNet is anything but a reliable source, it's a wild conspiracy org associated with Thierry Meyssan, who's best known for 9/11 conspiracy theories and using circular citations with other conspiracy theorists. He cites weirdo B, B cites weirdo C, C cites Thierry. Dude is a total crank, dunno what to tell you. Look at the website, it's totally goofy shit. Come on, now.
Voltaire net has been used here a lot as a source, he's a left winger and his book has been popularized by Arab leaders. 9/11 being an inside job is a commonly held opinion in the global south. The website is the most followed on geopolitics. I am not a conservative, my parents are both left wing Indians.
Comrade, I'm not trying to suggest you are a right-winger. I'm just saying that these sources may not be as authoritative and reliable as you may have thought. Even if voltairenet is respectable on geopolitics, why would a geopolitics expert be the person you'd trust on climate change, rather than a climate scientist?
A conversation on 9/11 is probably best left for another thread, my points are simply that A. People can be wrong, B. Just because someone is good at one thing doesn't mean we should trust them on another, and C. When the research and scientific methods being used for something are dubious at best and intentionally misleading at worst, we probably shouldn't trust those sources.
I don't know about this one chief
You can find a group of people willing to sign anything for money or attention. 1600 "scientists" worldwide doesn't really mean much. Especially since the question becomes: how many of them are climate scientists? A physicist might have a good grasp of an atom, but that doesn't mean they automatically understand every other scientific discipline. It's like saying a plumber can easily do a mechanic's job because they both use wrenches.
A lot of bad faith groups use tactics like this, finding an impressive sounding number of people to support whatever thing they claim, but when you look closer, you find that none of the people (or very few) actually have the credentials necessary to make an informed decision on the matter, sometimes they'll even just lie and add fake names or fake doctorates to try and pad the numbers.
The report in the first link is 1 page of affirmations, without any evidence, backing, nor references. Followed by 50 pages of names of random people, including a veterinarian and my old scuba instructor (really!).
That's not a report. I'll pass.
I can provide evidence to back up those claims
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (founded by nuclear scientists like Einstein, talks about climate change issues) https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
I understand that the CO2 theory is a well-regarded mainstream theory but Russia's theory of climate change attempts to account for these abnormalities. So I wanted to discuss this with the comrades.