Climate Change thread

[trastrick]

Just now, Annie Bynnol said:

There is a misconception that satellites do everything-they don't.

They are phenomenally expensive, very small, less sensitive, difficult to adjust and are 'blind' to many measurements, often need calibrating and usually short lived, the are just one of many 'tool' used to make observations.

 

Well, they can't cook an egg, that we do know for sure!   

 

We know they can't measure a yard of cloth, but they do a decent job of measuring the distance from say, Tweed to Surbiton.

 

But we don't know how being "phenominally expensive and "very small", and "need calibrating" detracts from their preeminent postion, as the most reliable "tool" to observe and monitor changes in the Earth's temperature, ice cover or sea level. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

5 hours ago, trastrick said:

Well, they can't cook an egg, that we do know for sure!   

 

We know they can't measure a yard of cloth, but they do a decent job of measuring the distance from say, Tweed to Surbiton.

 

But we don't know how being "phenominally expensive and "very small", and "need calibrating" detracts from their preeminent postion, as the most reliable "tool" to observe and monitor changes in the Earth's temperature, ice cover or sea level. 

Remote sensing requires many solutions and the customer pays for the quality and quantity of data.

All remote sensing types have advantages and disadvantages and a sensing problem solution  is always a compromise.

No idiot would buy Satellite time capable of a resolution of 0.5m to measure a vague request involving an accuracy of 20Km+

between "Tweed"(?) and Surbiton. The cheapest and easiest solution would be Google Earth or the OS.

Measurement of temperatures in the ocean or in the atmosphere require  sensors that can move 'up and down'. They struggle with air pressure

Satellites are really good at covering large areas but are not the best solution for accurately measuring air temperature, sea temperature at depths, air pressure. Sea level varies so much because of so many variables that global sea level rise uses historic mechanical an statistical methods to create a 'mean'. Triangulating the height between the sea surface and a overhead satellite to an accuracy of 2mm is pointless when the waves are 2m, the wind bulge could be 1m the sea temperature expansion is 5mm. 

Designing sensors small enough and light enough to be launched in a satellite and to maintain low Earth orbit compromises the resolution of the sensors.

All sensors have to be calibrated regularly during their useful life.

[trastrick]

13 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Remote sensing requires many solutions and the customer pays for the quality and quantity of data.

All remote sensing types have advantages and disadvantages and a sensing problem solution  is always a compromise.

No idiot would buy Satellite time capable of a resolution of 0.5m to measure a vague request involving an accuracy of 20Km+

between "Tweed"(?) and Surbiton. The cheapest and easiest solution would be Google Earth or the OS.

Measurement of temperatures in the ocean or in the atmosphere require  sensors that can move 'up and down'. They struggle with air pressure

Satellites are really good at covering large areas but are not the best solution for accurately measuring air temperature, sea temperature at depths, air pressure. Sea level varies so much because of so many variables that global sea level rise uses historic mechanical an statistical methods to create a 'mean'. Triangulating the height between the sea surface and a overhead satellite to an accuracy of 2mm is pointless when the waves are 2m, the wind bulge could be 1m the sea temperature expansion is 5mm. 

Designing sensors small enough and light enough to be launched in a satellite and to maintain low Earth orbit compromises the resolution of the sensors.

All sensors have to be calibrated regularly during their useful life.

You continue to underestimate the effectiveness of satellites to monitor whole Earth systems.

 

Even Google Earth is not possible, but for satellites.

 

You totally miss the point of a 43 year satellite observation record.

 

We know it can't measure a 1 mm sea level rise, on any given day, but satellites accumulate data, over decades, and observations made over a long period of time can record sea levels, say in 1979, through to 2022. The daily, weekly, monthly, annual "noise" can be removed to render the multi-decadal increase, which is used to estimate the yearly increase of the 3mm per year, reported.

 

The terrestrial record from 1880, which is derived from ground based instruments, ancient tidal guages, floating buoys, weather balloons, ice core  samples, and tree ring analysis, even ancient steam ship water intake valve records, and of course, much "assumed" manual infilling in the vast areas, which have no terrestrial or oceanic instruments, is just not that reliable, and in the the satellite era, less and less relevant.

 

Satellites are here to stay, Annie. 

 

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand torturous explanations, and "buts"

 

June 2012

 

 

June 2022

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by trastrick

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

...

 

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand torturous explanations, and "buts"

 

 

Not when the data is manipulated to satisfy a belief.

As I would expect from someone who does not understand or someone who selects interpretations to fit their viewpoint.

Someone who was genuinely interested in the science would immediately recognise your attempted manipulation.

This also perhaps explains your need to only accept to make bizarre claims about data collection from one source.

 

Your own data source compare the sea ice extent over the north pole.

Your own data source compares three data sets:

•  2022 up to July- you are out of date.
•  2012- included because it was once a record sea ice minimum and a significant outlier to the trend.
• the individual years between 2018 and 2021.
• the1981-2010 median and range

You conveniently ignored the 1981-2010 median and range which is the essential reference point against which the current data is compared.

Deliberately omitting the 1981-2010 median and range data leaves us with a comparison between a former record and the current data which of course will be closer and appear to validate your belief.

 

The graph below is the comparison that the real Climatologists from your source come up with- not your doctored version.

As you said "...they are the climatologists not me  

And I've no reason to doubt them."

[trastrick]

Gobbledygook, verging on science denial.

 

Claiming that charts published by National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) are "manipulated", is a crock, and even a "conspiracy theory".

 

It is also a lie!

 

Above I posted the NSIDC chart issued in June of 2012, and the one issued in June 2022, the last 10 years.

 

I'll be happy to post the entire series, from 1979 to 2022, but that's 42 graphs, and not necessary to pose the question,  "Is Arctic Ice Loss "catastrophic"

 

Which incidently you refuse to answer! 

 

(The chart you posted above is valid, and consistent with their observations)

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by trastrick

[Annie Bynnol]

4 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Gobbledygook, verging on science denial.

 

Claiming that charts published by National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) are "manipulated", is a crock, and even a "conspiracy theory".

 

It is also a lie!

 

Above I posted the NSIDC chart issued in June of 2012, and the one issued in June 2022, the last 10 years.

 

I'll be happy to post the entire series, from 1979 to 2022, but that's 42 graphs, and not necessary to pose the question,  "Is Arctic Ice Loss "catastrophic"

 

Which incidently you refuse to answer! 

 

(The chart you posted above is valid, and consistent with their observations)

 

I am claiming you deliberately selected the 2012 data.

I am claiming you deliberately ignored the reference point against which the data you have submitted is compared which is the.

 

Then this "(The chart you posted above is valid, and consistent with their observations)".

Of course it is-it is their data and is on the same page that you quote from.

Then this "...I'll be happy to post the entire series, from 1979 to 2022...". You don't need to as it is already presented in the chart above 1981 already does and a great deal more.

 

 

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

I'll be happy to post the entire series, from 1979 to 2022, but that's 42 graphs, and not necessary to pose the question,  "Is Arctic Ice Loss "catastrophic"

 

Which incidently you refuse to answer! 

Why do you think posting the entire series would give you enough information to make a reasonable determination of whether it would be "catastrophic" or not?

 

They're also just the tail end of a large and very rapid loss as per the longer term graph shown by the NOAA, so also lack any historical context.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Magilla

[trastrick]

On 29/07/2022 at 10:21, Annie Bynnol said:

I am claiming you deliberately selected the 2012 data.

I am claiming you deliberately ignored the reference point against which the data you have submitted is compared which is the.

 

Then this "(The chart you posted above is valid, and consistent with their observations)".

Of course it is-it is their data and is on the same page that you quote from.

Then this "...I'll be happy to post the entire series, from 1979 to 2022...". You don't need to as it is already presented in the chart above 1981 already does and a great deal more.

 

 

Lol

 

I "selected" NOAA's Actic Ice Extent image from June, 2012 years ago, to compare it to the their June 2022 image.

 

Shows the ice extent 10 years ago, and where it is today.

 

Then and now.

 

No "manipulation" nonsense involved, by me or NOAA. 

 

It is, what it is!

 

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

I "selected" NOAA's Actic Ice Extent image from June, 2012 years ago, to compare it to the their June 2022 image.

So, there's less Arctic Ice in 2022... in terms of surface area...

 

...but since extent is a measure of area, not volume, the images give no meaningful idea of how much volume of ice has been lost!

 

4 hours ago, trastrick said:

No "manipulation" nonsense involved, by me or NOAA. 

So what was the point of posting them again?

Edited July 31, 2022 by Magilla

[El Cid]

5 hours ago, trastrick said:

Lol

 

I "selected" NOAA's Actic Ice Extent image from June, 2012 years ago, to compare it to the their June 2022 image.

 

Shows the ice extent 10 years ago, and where it is today.

 

Then and now.

That would be like me looking at next week's weather forecast and saying that Englands summers are getting warmer.

Edited July 31, 2022 by El Cid