Climate Change thread

[Magilla]

1 minute ago, trastrick said:

Doing "nothing" is not a definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

 

Look it up! 

Can you really be this stupid?

 

A Ponzi-Scheme is "an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors"...

 

...in essence, benefiting now at the expense of others in the future.

 

It is the very definition of doing nothing in the context of climate change!

 

1 minute ago, trastrick said:

A link usuallly contains the source. Why no link?

It's literally two clicks from the already provided homepage...

 

...but of course, you can't be bothered... might actually learn something!

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum

 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

I consider that NOAA and NASA are the only valid sources of continuous monitoring of the whole Earth's temps and ice cover.

 

I posted what they have. The source data is available through the links.

 

If you have other sources other than "Climate Change activists" please post them.

 

We're all aware of what climate activists are saying! 

 

Only too well!

 

Then you are very, very wrong.

Satellite observations are one of many ways of observing the Earth and have their limitations.

 

Satellites are blind to many types of observations required and most are very specialized.

NOAA satellites have been collecting data since 1970 and their data has contributed massively to understanding weather.

All  satellites are limited in the range an accuracy and actually had to be calibrated by other observations. 

As with all remote sensing devices the biggest problem is what to do with data. NOAA contracts or makes data available to many organizations around the world. What you see is their interpretation.

A much bigger limitation of satellites is that they cannot see(they can only infer) what is happening in the Ocean.

Not unsurprisingly UK weather forecasting is far more difficult than any other developed country and by any measure is regarded as being way ahead of other countries like the US who do not need to predict changes as quickly.

But all that is weather.

 

Climate.

The Oceans are where the biggest energy transfers takes place and hence the biggest influence on climate.

Deep sea currents distribute heat energy and cause global variations, the sea acts as a heat sink as opposed to the land.

Sea temperature control air temperature and therefor surface winds. 

Climate changes have been measured for a thousand years and accurately for 300 years by the British, who also have the most accurate and detailed astronomical and oceanographic records. This enables the detection of cycles in the climate of the Earth including Ice Ages etc. These existing cycles can be 'removed' from what is being observed now and what climatologists 'see' from dozens of different measurements including satellites, is a difference between actual and expected. In the early 1970's unexpected cooling was observed but soon replaced by a continuous increase in measurements described popularly as 'warming'. 

 

Satellites and sea ice are only just a part of the picture, useful but not definitive.

Selecting a few graphics which you wrongly picked out to fit your beliefs is not science.

 

[Anna B]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that man-made global warming is happening.

Let's also assume  that we all want to continue a similar/better lifestyle that we have now. depending on generated power. What can we sensibly do to improve the situation for everyone?  

[trastrick]

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Then you are very, very wrong.

Satellite observations are one of many ways of observing the Earth and have their limitations.

 

Satellites are blind to many types of observations required and most are very specialized.

NOAA satellites have been collecting data since 1970 and their data has contributed massively to understanding weather.

All  satellites are limited in the range an accuracy and actually had to be calibrated by other observations. 

As with all remote sensing devices the biggest problem is what to do with data. NOAA contracts or makes data available to many organizations around the world. What you see is their interpretation.

A much bigger limitation of satellites is that they cannot see(they can only infer) what is happening in the Ocean.

Not unsurprisingly UK weather forecasting is far more difficult than any other developed country and by any measure is regarded as being way ahead of other countries like the US who do not need to predict changes as quickly.

But all that is weather.

 

Climate.

The Oceans are where the biggest energy transfers takes place and hence the biggest influence on climate.

Deep sea currents distribute heat energy and cause global variations, the sea acts as a heat sink as opposed to the land.

Sea temperature control air temperature and therefor surface winds. 

Climate changes have been measured for a thousand years and accurately for 300 years by the British, who also have the most accurate and detailed astronomical and oceanographic records. This enables the detection of cycles in the climate of the Earth including Ice Ages etc. These existing cycles can be 'removed' from what is being observed now and what climatologists 'see' from dozens of different measurements including satellites, is a difference between actual and expected. In the early 1970's unexpected cooling was observed but soon replaced by a continuous increase in measurements described popularly as 'warming'. 

 

Satellites and sea ice are only just a part of the picture, useful but not definitive.

Selecting a few graphics which you wrongly picked out to fit your beliefs is not science.

 

I posted the very latest (June 2022) data from the experts.

 

NOAA, NASA, and NSIDC.

 

I'll take their data over your tortuous "explanations"

 

[trastrick]

16 hours ago, Magilla said:

It has "NOAA" stamped on it so it seemed fairly obvious

 

Well thanks for highlighting your complete failure to comprehend the issues at hand!

Lol

 

It's "fairly obvious" that your graph, only goes to 2000.

 

Sneaky, but I wouldn't expect more from you! 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

6 hours ago, trastrick said:

I posted the very latest (June 2022) data from the experts.

 

NOAA, NASA, and NSIDC.

 

I'll take their data over your tortuous "explanations"

 

Mistake number one is thinking you have posted the latest data from  NOAA, NASA, and NSIDC. you have posted an interpretation of one very specific measurement, 

Mistake number two is thinking that one measurement has any significance.

Mistake number three is in thinking that the very latest observation (which it isn't) is by itself useful.

If you understood anything about observing the Arctic Ocean you would know that the extent of sea ice coverage is only one of dozens of measurements made every second* with more or less relevance to changes in the Arctic.

Mistake four is over emphasizing the importance of  the Arctic-it is part of a closed system which 'overreacts' to local changes so quickly and so chaotically that it is not a good barometer of anything.

Mistake five is that you are making the same mistake as the 'activists', clutching at some evidence that you think you understand and using it to further your bias. In the real world all kinds of professional are trying to improve the knowledge and techniques to better understand what is going on and possibly fine tune the range of outcomes and inform our options.

 

 

*think what an attacking or a defending force would need to know about sea, sea ice and atmospheric conditions to enable their systems to work best.

[Magilla]

7 hours ago, trastrick said:

Lol

 

It's "fairly obvious" that your graph, only goes to 2000.

 

Sneaky, but I wouldn't expect more from you! 

It was sneaky of me to make you highlight your own inability to understand rate of change... wasn't it

Edited July 25, 2022 by Magilla

[trastrick]

16 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Mistake number one is thinking you have posted the latest data from  NOAA, NASA, and NSIDC. you have posted an interpretation of one very specific measurement, 

Mistake number two is thinking that one measurement has any significance.

Mistake number three is in thinking that the very latest observation (which it isn't) is by itself useful.

If you understood anything about observing the Arctic Ocean you would know that the extent of sea ice coverage is only one of dozens of measurements made every second* with more or less relevance to changes in the Arctic.

Mistake four is over emphasizing the importance of  the Arctic-it is part of a closed system which 'overreacts' to local changes so quickly and so chaotically that it is not a good barometer of anything.

Mistake five is that you are making the same mistake as the 'activists', clutching at some evidence that you think you understand and using it to further your bias. In the real world all kinds of professional are trying to improve the knowledge and techniques to better understand what is going on and possibly fine tune the range of outcomes and inform our options.

 

 

*think what an attacking or a defending force would need to know about sea, sea ice and atmospheric conditions to enable their systems to work best.

Lol

 

I'm not "clutching" at anything.

 

I just posted the latest published updated data from NASA, NOAA (Earth's temperature) and NSIDC (Polar Ice cover) as at June 30, 2022.

 

They are published monthly.

 

If you have any more recent official links, please post them for discussion

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by trastrick

[El Cid]

Since we have legally binding climate change targets and we are a long way off from meeting them. Will reducing fuel tax of even scrapping it, be challenged in the courts?

[Annie Bynnol]

On 26/07/2022 at 10:09, trastrick said:

Lol

 

I'm not "clutching" at anything.

 

I just posted the latest published updated data from NASA, NOAA (Earth's temperature) and NSIDC (Polar Ice cover) as at June 30, 2022.

 

They are published monthly.

 

If you have any more recent official links, please post them for discussion

 

 

NSIDC on July 18th said:

"Arctic sea ice extent continued its summer decline. Extent is below average but not as low as in recent summers. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent is currently at record low levels for this time of year."

 

 

 

Below is graphic you should have used: NSIDC

It shows the reduction in Sea Ice extent in the Arctic Spring between 1981/2010(grey) and  and and the present day.

The coloured lines cover the last 5 years. The dashed line the record year of 2012.

"The graph (below) shows Arctic sea ice extent as of July 17, 2022, along with daily ice extent data for four previous years and the record low year. 2022 is shown in blue, 2021 in green, 2020 in orange, 2019 in brown, 2018 in magenta, and 2012 in dashed brown. The 1981 to 2010 median is in dark gray. The gray areas around the median line show the interquartile and interdecile ranges of the data."