Climate Change thread

[trastrick]

2 hours 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..

 

     

 

Why not feel free to post your evidence of your nonsensical claims?

 

That these government agencies are posting "actually significant examples of a changing climate" is your personal belief, so you are  accepting them..

 

I accept that the satellite data posted and updated every month by these agencies is the most reliable data we have!

 

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

 

Posted as published

 

I do NOT interpret them!

 

They are what they are!

 

Do you believe they are lying to us? Explain yourself.

 

Staring here!...........   

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

We went for a picnic on Tuesday up above Dunford Bridge, we were going to go to Home Moss (one of the best views in the UK) but I didn't want to drive both ways through the Salters Brook "temporary" lights ! Of interest for a Climate Change thread is from there we coudl see about 24 wind turbines. 7 (seven ! ) were either not working at all, or turning so slowly as to be pretty much useless.......

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Why not feel free to post your evidence of your nonsensical claims?

That these government agencies are posting "actually significant examples of a changing climate" is your personal belief, so you are  accepting them..

I accept that the satellite data posted and updated every month by these agencies is the most reliable data we have!

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Posted as published

I do NOT interpret them!

They are what they are!

Do you believe they are lying to us? Explain yourself.

Staring here!...........   

    What "...nonsensical claims..." have I made?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..."when I reminded you that you had not presented "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)"?

    Was a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when I told you that your first graphic was an interpretation produced by the University of Alabama at Huntsville using raw numbers from satellite microwave sensors and calibrated by 'balloon', showing warming in the lower atmosphere across the planet?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when your second graphic said  that there was a 2.5% decrease in Arctic sea ice per decade?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when I explained why Antarctic sea ice coverage in the same way?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." to attach the actual analysis by NSIDC of their own graphics which disagree with your beliefs?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." to compare your misuse and misinterpretation of data analysis with the misuse and misinterpretation by the 'environmentalists'.

    If you are going to argue your case about climate change with the 'environmentalists' at least try not to point to evidence  that so obviously undermines your case. 

[trastrick]

Just now, Annie Bynnol said:

    What "...nonsensical claims..." have I made?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..."when I reminded you that you had not presented "... the entire 44 year record of satellite observations from NOAA/NASAA(sic)"?

    Was a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when I told you that your first graphic was an interpretation produced by the University of Alabama at Huntsville using raw numbers from satellite microwave sensors and calibrated by 'balloon', showing warming in the lower atmosphere across the planet?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when your second graphic said  that there was a 2.5% decrease in Arctic sea ice per decade?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." or "...absolute rubbish..." when I explained why Antarctic sea ice coverage in the same way?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." to attach the actual analysis by NSIDC of their own graphics which disagree with your beliefs?

    Was it a "...nonsensical claim..." to compare your misuse and misinterpretation of data analysis with the misuse and misinterpretation by the 'environmentalists'.

    If you are going to argue your case about climate change with the 'environmentalists' at least try not to point to evidence  that so obviously undermines your case. 

Have a nice day, Annie!

 

Last word to you! 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by trastrick

[trastrick]

Here are some personal observations on "Catastrophic  Anthropogenic Climate Change" warnings and alarms.

 

Anthropogenic Climate Change is a scientific hypothesis, as is the belief that humans can constrain the climate to some arbitrary temperature in some  arbitrary time frame. Those hypotheses are far from "Settled Science", otherwise there would be no debate. (There's no debate about the shape of the Earth)

 

The U.N. IPCC and Paris Accords seek to constrain Global temperature rise to a level related to "Pre-Industrial Levels" Their target is 1.5 above said pre-industrial levels.

The "problem" we are told, started with the Industrial Revolution and its reliance on, and and huge demands for, Fossil Fuels.

Britain led the Industrial Revolution, so they are responsible for the origins of man made global warming. Reparations anyone?  

The Industrial Revolution allowed Colonial Britain to dominate of much of the globe. Reparations anyone?  :)

 

Their were many great scientists and engineers in Britain who made it possible. and I'm sure there must be still some competent ones in Britain today.

 

So I have a question for them.

 

Articles, Studies and web sites promoting the hypothesis usually contain a banner photo to bring home the "reality"to the reader.

Early on it was photoshopped pictures of New York and Miami and other major cities under several feet of water. Also a stock photos of a Polar Bear, sometime a sickly one looking forlorn on a tiny patch of ice.

 

Even an Indian in full traditional costume, shedding a tear for the planet,  who was actually an Italian born Hollywood actor.

 

As the public got more sophisticated over fake graphics, (they had access to such technology on their smart phones) this practice was mercifully dropped.

But how to graphically illustrate the "problem" to the impressionable public?

 

The answer today is photos of polluting industry sites, pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

 

Most cities I have visited these days have generally clear skies, so stock photos are again relied on to impress the reader.

 

Are there any engineers or scientists out their who can look at these stock photos with no identification info, and tell me which shows devastating industrial pollution, and which shows merely steam on a cold day?

 

(Bear in mind that C02 is colorless and odorless)

 

Media Smokestack Images And Air Pollution Spin
"Those billowing white clouds coming out aren’t what you may think

“It is always misleading for a media outlet to report on climate change and then use a picture showing billowing clouds of steam coming out of a stack,” said Jason Hayes, director of environmental policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Hayes said carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that comes from a coal plant, but it is an odorless — and more importantly, clear — gas. So a photo of a coal plant emitting clouds of steam really has nothing to do with climate change.

https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/media-smokestack-images-and-air-pollution-spin"

So here you go, have at it!

 

BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m721x

 

CBC

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/un-climate-change-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope-1.2821093

 

Guardian

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c5b89b52811ce66e6cbed36bbdc26fd100f234bc/0_384_5760_3456/master/5760.jpg?width=620&quality=45&dpr=2&s=none

National Geographic

https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkids.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnature%2Fsave-the-earth%2Farticle%2F13-ways-to-save-the-earth-from-climate-change&psig=AOvVaw3e9gxRYdk-eRD4dm6UvhG1&ust=1680854687881000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCMiyn5rZlP4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

All comments welcome!

 

All comments welcome! 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

    

On 06/04/2023 at 17:06, trastrick said:

Here are some personal observations on "Catastrophic  Anthropogenic Climate Change" warnings and alarms.

...

All comments welcome! 

      In Sheffield, not only do we know that smoke from burning coal in thermal power stations comes out out of chimneys, we also know that steam does not come out of cooling towers as steam does not enter cooling towers. It is the small amount of  evaporated hot water rising in the warm air and condensing in the cooler air above. 

      As you are a big fan and trust NOAA you might like to know what all their satellites and surface measurements have been recording over the last forty years regarding sea surface temperatures. Of especial concern is the return to record ocean temperatures as La Nina fades. Sea surface temperatures are a far more important indicators of trends than your air temperature as the amount of energy involved is vastly greater than in the lower atmosphere. It is not the absolute value so much as the rate of change of temperature. 

 

Interactive version here to April 7th

       

 

 

[trastrick]

16 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

    

      In Sheffield, not only do we know that smoke from burning coal in thermal power stations comes out out of chimneys, we also know that steam does not come out of cooling towers as steam does not enter cooling towers. It is the small amount of  evaporated hot water rising in the warm air and condensing in the cooler air above. 

      As you are a big fan and trust NOAA you might like to know what all their satellites and surface measurements have been recording over the last forty years regarding sea surface temperatures. Of especial concern is the return to record ocean temperatures as La Nina fades. Sea surface temperatures are a far more important indicators of trends than your air temperature as the amount of energy involved is vastly greater than in the lower atmosphere. It is not the absolute value so much as the rate of change of temperature. 

 

Interactive version here to April 7th

       

 

 

Lol

 

"As you are a big fan and trust NOAA you might like to know what all their satellites and surface measurements have been recording over the last forty years regarding sea surface temperatures".

 

Aye, Annie, I'm a big fan of NOAA (and NASA), but only because they are the "most trusted" source of global warming data.

I post their data, rather than the MSM, and Global Warming activist charlatans  "interpretations" of "what the scientists say.

 

The chart you post represents only the Temperate and Equatorial  sea temperature. From 60 degrees South to 60 degrees North.

 

Actually, it doesn't even include even all of the Temperate Zones. The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66°33′49.4″ north of the Equator.[4] 

 

So in no way does it represent World sea temperatures.

 

But the global warmers will ignore the science and happily misreport, and misstate the findings.

 

The Guardian

‘Headed off the charts’: world’s ocean surface temperature hits record high

Scientists warn of more marine heatwaves, leading to increased risk of extreme weather

 

 

"The temperature of the world’s ocean surface has hit an all-time high since satellite records began, leading to marine heatwaves around the globe, according to US government data.

 

"Climate scientists said preliminary data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) showed the average temperature at the ocean’s surface has been at 21.1C since the start of April – beating the previous high of 21C set in 2016".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/08/headed-off-the-charts-worlds-ocean-surface-temperature-hits-record-high

 

Predictable of course, and the great unwashed and the gullible will be no wiser!

 

Condensation as C02, Sick Polar bears, Photoshopped flooded cities, and Italian Hollywood actor "Chief Iron Eye" tears notwithstanding.

 

I'm sure a better case for global catastrophe, could be made  than fake appeals to children and the child like.

 

Lol

[trastrick]

On 06/04/2023 at 03:20, 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

Another fallacy is that, like all social programmes,  climate catastrophe can be averted, by taxing the rich.

 

Easy, right?

 

But not so fast, Moriarty!

 

The rich are a valued source of investment, employment (non government) like the family farm cow.

 

Mistreat it and it stops giving milk!

 

Mistreat the rich, and they leave in droves, and go to more investment friendly locations. You're left with a government, with no wealth to share!

 

The Guardian

Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly

"Flood moving abroad has come as a shock and is costing tens of millions in lost tax receipts"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

 

Wall Street Journal

Blue State Exodus Continues

 

 

 

Dec 27, 2022 — Florida drew the most newcomers (318,855), followed by Texas (230,961), North Carolina (99,796), South Carolina (84,030), Tennessee (81,646), ...

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-blue-state-exodus-census-data-red-blue-lockdowns-pandemic-florida-california-economy-progressive-11671993469

 

So the unsustainable National Debts continue to spiral out of control!

 

To the inevitable end! 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Lol

"As you are a big fan and trust NOAA you might like to know what all their satellites and surface measurements have been recording over the last forty years regarding sea surface temperatures".

Aye, Annie, I'm a big fan of NOAA (and NASA), but only because they are the "most trusted" source of global warming data.

I post their data, rather than the MSM, and Global Warming activist charlatans  "interpretations" of "what the scientists say.

The chart you post represents only the Temperate and Equatorial  sea temperature. From 60 degrees South to 60 degrees North.

Actually, it doesn't even include even all of the Temperate Zones. The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66°33′49.4″ north of the Equator.[4] 

So in no way does it represent World sea temperatures.

But the global warmers will ignore the science and happily misreport, and misstate the findings.

The Guardian

‘Headed off the charts’: world’s ocean surface temperature hits record high

Scientists warn of more marine heatwaves, leading to increased risk of extreme weather

"The temperature of the world’s ocean surface has hit an all-time high since satellite records began, leading to marine heatwaves around the globe, according to US government data.

"Climate scientists said preliminary data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) showed the average temperature at the ocean’s surface has been at 21.1C since the start of April – beating the previous high of 21C set in 2016".

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/08/headed-off-the-charts-worlds-ocean-surface-temperature-hits-record-high

Predictable of course, and the great unwashed and the gullible will be no wiser!

Condensation as C02, Sick Polar bears, Photoshopped flooded cities, and Italian Hollywood actor "Chief Iron Eye" tears notwithstanding.

  made  than fake appeals to children and the child like.

Lol

     You really do need to check your definitions and understanding as it makes a mockery of your comments on  "...  World sea temperatures", such misuse is only paralleled by the "Global Warming activist charlatans".

     Let's start with correcting your attempts to 'fit' the NOAA sea temperature data -it accounts for 90% by volume of our seas. The Arctic Ocean contains less than 1.4% of the volume of the Earth's sea water. The satellite and surface measurements can only predict the amount of energy within the Ocean system and the effect on currents and subsequent effect of heat transfer in the Ocean and Atmosphere- ie Global Climate. As explained previously the Antarctic and the surrounding Southern Ocean Current is a closed system where energy transfer to and from the temperate zone is limited(at the moment). All of which minimize any changes(suits your argument). The Arctic Ocean is small and relatively shallow and mainly surrounded by land. Sea temperature changes due to current and run off from the continents, all of which magnify any changes(suits the activists  argument). So the important bit is to understand what is happening on and therefore in the vast majority of the Oceans and their currents which are to be found between the 60 ° N/S latitudes. Also above these latitudes the effect of air content on Solar heat absorption is unimportant.

     The only bit of the "Temperate Zones"(min coldest month average 0 °C/18 °C and one month averages above 10 °C)is a few thousand square kilometers of the Norwegian  coast and islands up the North Cape. Irrelevant.

     No idea why you introduced the vagaries of arctic circle position as the NOAA data provided clearly indicates the 60° latitudes is used as a standard. There will be several reasons for this but the main one will be significance. 

    

[trastrick]

Just now, Annie Bynnol said:

     You really do need to check your definitions and understanding as it makes a mockery of your comments on  "...  World sea temperatures", such misuse is only paralleled by the "Global Warming activist charlatans".

     Let's start with correcting your attempts to 'fit' the NOAA sea temperature data -it accounts for 90% by volume of our seas. The Arctic Ocean contains less than 1.4% of the volume of the Earth's sea water. The satellite and surface measurements can only predict the amount of energy within the Ocean system and the effect on currents and subsequent effect of heat transfer in the Ocean and Atmosphere- ie Global Climate. As explained previously the Antarctic and the surrounding Southern Ocean Current is a closed system where energy transfer to and from the temperate zone is limited(at the moment). All of which minimize any changes(suits your argument). The Arctic Ocean is small and relatively shallow and mainly surrounded by land. Sea temperature changes due to current and run off from the continents, all of which magnify any changes(suits the activists  argument). So the important bit is to understand what is happening on and therefore in the vast majority of the Oceans and their currents which are to be found between the 60 ° N/S latitudes. Also above these latitudes the effect of air content on Solar heat absorption is unimportant.

     The only bit of the "Temperate Zones"(min coldest month average 0 °C/18 °C and one month averages above 10 °C)is a few thousand square kilometers of the Norwegian  coast and islands up the North Cape. Irrelevant.

     No idea why you introduced the vagaries of arctic circle position as the NOAA data provided clearly indicates the 60° latitudes is used as a standard. There will be several reasons for this but the main one will be significance. 

    

 

It gets funnier! 

 

The Guardian

‘Headed off the charts’: world’s ocean surface temperature hits record high

Scientists warn of more marine heatwaves, leading to increased risk of extreme weather

 

I get the usual dissembling lecture, when I point out the misleading article headline above.

 

It is not "the world's  ocean surface temperature", when they leave the 2 coldest bits out, namely South and North of 60 degrees!

 

But not matter!

 

Last word to you!

 

Have a nice day!

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by trastrick