3 ms·

> No panic, no disaster. “Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice

> No panic, no disaster. “Research suggests the species might lose anywhere between 50% and 70% of its global population by the end of this century, if sea-ice is reduced to the extent that computer models envisage.”

cletus 7y ago
So I take issue with the GP's assertion that is overly "emotive", the implication being that the BBC is biased about blowing things out of proportion that suits its agenda. The article seems quite factual to me. But I do take issue with the claim that we "might lose between 50% and 70% of the global population" because of reduced sea ice as overly simplistic extrapolation [1]. As much as birds (like many animals) seem to return to the same place (typically where they themselves were born)--and, on a side note, I would love to know how they do this--they also seem capable of adapting. It seems relatively likely that a good number of them have moved to the nearby colony mentioned just based on numbers. So even if sea ice does reduce dramatically by the end of the century, it doesn't automatically follow that penguin populations will similarly decline. Stability of ice (April-December) is important but declining sea ice just moves that further south (to a point). Proximity to food sources is also key. I actually kind of wish we'd just stop with "computer modeling". Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been. [1] https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
- misnome 7y ago
  > Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been. Sources? You seem to have read the number and automatically assumed it's a straight line extrapolation. As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine and - corrected, but not majorly disproven; it's the reporting on them that looks at the most extreme extrapolations to whip up hysteria (and so it gets ignored and so the extreme cases become more likely).
  - soperj 7y ago
    >As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine Sources? because they really really haven't.
    - misnome 7y ago
      I mean the first result on google was https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... which seems to cover most of the major players, including the IPCC reports looking pretty consistent within uncertainties.
      - soperj 7y ago
        Don't know where it gets these means from. For example. When I look at the IPCC's 4th assessment summary (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full...) On page 7, they have a bunch of scenarios based on various GHG emissions. From what I can tell, we're above all of them on the GHG emissions front, and under all of them on the actual temperature changes. Yet this carbon brief site says it matches exactly what has happened, so don't know what they're going off of.
- abalone 7y ago
  > But I do take issue with the claim that we "might lose between 50% and 70% of the global population" because of reduced sea ice as overly simplistic extrapolation [1]. I’m sorry, are you familiar with their computer models? How do you know they are overly simplistic?

cletus 7y ago

So I take issue with the GP's assertion that is overly "emotive", the implication being that the BBC is biased about blowing things out of proportion that suits its agenda. The article seems quite factual to me. But I do take issue with the claim that we "might lose between 50% and 70% of the global population" because of reduced sea ice as overly simplistic extrapolation [1]. As much as birds (like many animals) seem to return to the same place (typically where they themselves were born)--and, on a side note, I would love to know how they do this--they also seem capable of adapting. It seems relatively likely that a good number of them have moved to the nearby colony mentioned just based on numbers. So even if sea ice does reduce dramatically by the end of the century, it doesn't automatically follow that penguin populations will similarly decline. Stability of ice (April-December) is important but declining sea ice just moves that further south (to a point). Proximity to food sources is also key. I actually kind of wish we'd just stop with "computer modeling". Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been. [1] https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/

misnome 7y ago
> Part of the reason we have so many climate change deniers (IMHO) is just how bad climate model predictions have been. Sources? You seem to have read the number and automatically assumed it's a straight line extrapolation. As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine and - corrected, but not majorly disproven; it's the reporting on them that looks at the most extreme extrapolations to whip up hysteria (and so it gets ignored and so the extreme cases become more likely).
- soperj 7y ago
  >As far as I'm aware the climate models have been fine Sources? because they really really haven't.
  - misnome 7y ago
    I mean the first result on google was https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... which seems to cover most of the major players, including the IPCC reports looking pretty consistent within uncertainties.
    - soperj 7y ago
      Don't know where it gets these means from. For example. When I look at the IPCC's 4th assessment summary (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full...) On page 7, they have a bunch of scenarios based on various GHG emissions. From what I can tell, we're above all of them on the GHG emissions front, and under all of them on the actual temperature changes. Yet this carbon brief site says it matches exactly what has happened, so don't know what they're going off of.
abalone 7y ago
> But I do take issue with the claim that we "might lose between 50% and 70% of the global population" because of reduced sea ice as overly simplistic extrapolation [1]. I’m sorry, are you familiar with their computer models? How do you know they are overly simplistic?