Climate Change thread

[trastrick]

With the U.N. IPCC warning of our last chance to save the planet,:

 

“there is still one last chance to shift course.” But it will – naturally – “require industrialized nations to join together immediately to slash greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and then stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s.”

 

it is prudent that we ignore some of the noise in the Media over more mundane issuess, and take these matters seriously.

 

We should look at the scientific evidence, and pay attention to what it says,without the political spin, by vested interests on both sides of the debate, on Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming.

 

Here's the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA

 

 

 

 

Here's the Arctic Ice Extent Record

Here's the Antarctic Ice Extent record

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

11 hours ago, trastrick said:

With the U.N. IPCC warning of our last chance to save the planet,:

 

“there is still one last chance to shift course.” But it will – naturally – “require industrialized nations to join together immediately to slash greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and then stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the early 2050s.”

 

it is prudent that we ignore some of the noise in the Media over more mundane issuess, and take these matters seriously.

 

We should look at the scientific evidence, and pay attention to what it says,without the political spin, by vested interests on both sides of the debate, on Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming.

 

Here's the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA

 

 

 

 

Here's the Arctic Ice Extent Record

Here's the Antarctic Ice Extent record

 

 

       This is a near repeat of you previous personally selected data which  still only establishes your weak understanding exemplified with the oddest of claims that you are providing "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)". You really do need to read/understand what you have copied and pasted.

        Your first graphic "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)" is a pure invention on your part. It is what the title of the graph says, an interpretation of one kind of measurement(Microwave Sounding Unit  measurements) of the warming taking place in one part of the atmosphere and calibrated by real atmospheric readings at 0.2 degrees per decade. As you have been told already satellites cannot directly measure the lower atmosphere temperatures so the Huntsville university scientists have come up with an indirect method of linking of the recorded 'oxygen microwave radiance' with air temperature. This is calibrated with temperatures recorded by 'balloons' carrying 'real thermometers'. This then allows for global measurements yo be made.

       Your second graphic states that the decline in area of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is 2.5% (± 0.4%)per decade. What your reasoning behind providing such clear evidence of significant ongoing sea ice decline is unclear.

       Your third graphic of antarctic sea ice coverage is, as has been explained at least twice before a function of the isolation of the south polar region (including sea ice) by the circumpolar sea currents. The concern here would be a repeat of previous historic rapid collapses of the ice shelves and the impact on global sea currents. 

       Of the hundreds of interpretations based on thousands of data sets available you have chosen to inaccurately describe three which you wrongly assume support your beliefs.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Annie Bynnol

[trastrick]

4 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

       This is a near repeat of you previous personally selected data which  still only establishes your weak understanding exemplified with the oddest of claims that you are providing "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)". You really do need to read/understand what you have copied and pasted.

        Your first graphic "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)" is a pure invention on your part. It is what the title of the graph says, an interpretation of one kind of measurement(Microwave Sounding Unit  measurements) of the warming taking place in one part of the atmosphere and calibrated by real atmospheric readings at 0.2 degrees per decade. As you have been told already satellites cannot directly measure the lower atmosphere temperatures so the Huntsville university scientists have come up with an indirect method of linking of the recorded 'oxygen microwave radiance' with air temperature. This is calibrated with temperatures recorded by 'balloons' carrying 'real thermometers'. This then allows for global measurements yo be made.

       Your second graphic states that the decline in area of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is 2.5% (± 0.4%)per decade. What your reasoning behind providing such clear evidence of significant ongoing sea ice decline is unclear.

       Your third graphic of antarctic sea ice coverage is, as has been explained at least twice before a function of the isolation of the south polar region (including sea ice) by the circumpolar sea currents. The concern here would be a repeat of previous historic rapid collapses of the ice shelves and the impact on global sea currents. 

       Of the hundreds of interpretations based on thousands of data sets available you have chosen to inaccurately describe three which you wrongly assume support your beliefs.

 

 

Absolute rubbish!

 

I "interpret" nothing.

 

They are NOT my graphics!

 

Nothing added, nothing taken away!

 

This is the latest monthly satellite data published by NOAA/NASA/NSIDC. direct from their web sites (A right click on the graphics will take you directly to the source)

 

(The temperature data is simply charted by UHA, partners, of NASA from NOAA's database available below)

 

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

 

It is what it is!

 

If you don't like their publications, take your "science denial", and lecture them! 

 

You are again lying about me "you have chosen to inaccurately describe three which you wrongly assume support your beliefs."

 

So all I will say to you is ...........(fill in the gap)

 

Interpret THAT! 

Edited April 6, 2023 by trastrick

[trastrick]

Speaking of updates, here's the latest from NSIDC on Polar Ice Extent:

 

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

 

 

 

 

 

Also available here:

 

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

Edited April 6, 2023 by trastrick

[Jack Grey]

The world is not ending

 

Climate change, health, sex and race have been weaponised by the left as a way to go around telling us all what to do and as a way to change policies without the ballot box

 

Companies support these ideologies because they can virtue signal and governments like it because they can tax us  for something that may never happen

[trastrick]

Just now, Jack Grey said:

The world is not ending

 

Climate change, health, sex and race have been weaponised by the left as a way to go around telling us all what to do and as a w ay to change policies without the ballot box

 

Companies support these ideologies because they can virtue signal and governments like it because they can tax us  for something that may never happen

The scientific question is does the science support the hypothesis, that the slight warming observed over the last 44 years, is Catastrophic for humankind, and likely to doom the planet in a few short years?

 

The political question is whether the World can, or should "fundamentally change society and its economic system" and devote $trillions to trying to fine tune the climate, by a few hundredths of a degree, by 2050, or 2100?

 

There is some disagreement in scientific and political circles about these issues.

Edited April 6, 2023 by trastrick

[Jack Grey]

14 minutes ago, trastrick said:

The scientific question is does the science support the hypothesis, that the slight warming observed over the last 44 years, is Catastrophic for humankind, and likely to doom the planet in a few short years?

 

The political question is whether the World can, or should "fundamentally change society and its economic system" and devote $trillions to trying to fine tune the climate, by a few hundredths of a degree, by 2050, or 2100?

 

There is some disagreement in scientific and political circles about these issues.

The 'Net Zero' policy that no one has voted for is a way for the government to tax us for a target they will never achieve in the UK and for something that we will never have any impact on globaly.

 

Its a policy that is now bankrupting businesses and has made energy costs astronomical for most families

[hauxwell]

17 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

The 'Net Zero' policy that no one has voted for is a way for the government to tax us for a target they will never achieve in the UK and for something that we will never have any impact on globaly.

 

Its a policy that is now bankrupting businesses and has made energy costs astronomical for most families

And I second that.

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

3 hours ago, trastrick said:

Absolute rubbish!

I "interpret" nothing.

They are NOT my graphics!

Nothing added, nothing taken away!

This is the latest monthly satellite data published by NOAA/NASA/NSIDC. direct from their web sites (A right click on the graphics will take you directly to the source)

(The temperature data is simply charted by UHA, partners, of NASA from NOAA's database available below)

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

It is what it is!

If you don't like their publications, take your "science denial", and lecture them! 

You are again lying about me "you have chosen to inaccurately describe three which you wrongly assume support your beliefs."

So all I will say to you is ...........(fill in the gap)

Interpret THAT! 

     Why do you claim that you have presented "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)" when you obviously have not? 

     Why  do you think that providing a graphic that states that there is nearly a million square kilometres less Arctic sea ice in the 2023 maxima or, the sixth lowest maxima coverage in the satellite record, supports you beliefs?

     Why do you keep repeating  your tiny selection of data that are actually significant examples of a changing climate?

     Why the need such a silly response when factual errors are pointed out to you?

     This level of selection and misinterpretation is equaled by the environmentalists and does not help with understanding and decision making..

 

     

 

[Jack Grey]

1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said:

     Why do you claim that you have presented "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)" when you obviously have not? 

     Why  do you think that providing a graphic that states that there is nearly a million square kilometres less Arctic sea ice in the 2023 maxima or, the sixth lowest maxima coverage in the satellite record, supports you beliefs?

     Why do you keep repeating  your tiny selection of data that are actually significant examples of a changing climate?

     Why the need such a silly response when factual errors are pointed out to you?

     This level of selection and misinterpretation is equaled by the environmentalists and does not help with understanding and decision making..

 

     

 

Could it be that there are twice as many people on the planet as there was 50 years ago?