Climate Change thread

[Annie Bynnol]

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.

 

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

 

It is, what it is!

 

 

You are providing the Sea Ice data comparing a date in 2012 with the same date in 2022. TWO Months.

On same page they provide data covering 5 months in every year 1981-2010, 2012 and 2018-22, that is 175 Months. You choose to ignore.

The data is presented not only as a snapshot but as a dynamic showing the rate of change over the time - you chose only the snapshot.

 

You also choose to ignore the baseline that they use - the 1981- 2010 median.

You totally ignore the summary which they attach to your one new date.

 

On the simplest level nobody with an ounce of analytical ability would make a claim based on two observations.

Even 175 reading is nowhere near enough, but then every day millions of readings are taken recorded and added to databases and checked against the models- these you discount.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trastrick]

14 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

You are providing the Sea Ice data comparing a date in 2012 with the same date in 2022. TWO Months.

On same page they provide data covering 5 months in every year 1981-2010, 2012 and 2018-22, that is 175 Months. You choose to ignore.

The data is presented not only as a snapshot but as a dynamic showing the rate of change over the time - you chose only the snapshot.

 

You also choose to ignore the baseline that they use - the 1981- 2010 median.

You totally ignore the summary which they attach to your one new date.

 

On the simplest level nobody with an ounce of analytical ability would make a claim based on two observations.

Even 175 reading is nowhere near enough, but then every day millions of readings are taken recorded and added to databases and checked against the models- these you discount.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol

 

Lots of 'splaining, dessembling, accusations of "manipulation", and the usual personal insults, from the true believers.

 

But nobody addresses my original question, which is:

 

Is it catastrophic?

 

It's summer. the Northest passage is still frozen solid.  All predictions that the summer Artcic ice would have have melted by now, are moot.

 

A hundred years ago, Amunsen was able to get through the Northwest passage, using a wooden boat 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

6 minutes ago, trastrick said:

But nobody addresses my original question, which is:

 

Is it catastrophic?

It has been addressed, as above, the data supplied is not sufficient to answer it...

 

...for the somewhat obvious reasons already outlined.

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Lol

 

Lots of 'splaining, dessembling, accusations of "manipulation", and the usual personal insults, from the true believers.

 

But nobody addresses my original question, which is:

 

Is it catastrophic?

 

It's summer. the Northest passage is still frozen solid.  All predictions that the summer Artcic ice would have have melted by now, are moot.

 

A hundred years ago, Amunsen was able to get through the Northwest passage, using a wooden boat 

 

 

Clutching at straws again.

Sea Ice extent minimum is around 14th of September. Another six weeks.

The cruise ship window is August and September.

Already 90% of the route between the Beaufort Sea and the Davis Straight is clear enough.

Don't rely on single point data 

 

Below is yesterdays Sea Ice Concentration map which is an estimate based on satellite observation:

 

Amundsen, like his predecessors knew the difference between the ice floes and the pack ice.

No sailing ship would attempt to cut through Pack ice, but most did have to make their way through the floes

Pack Ice move slowly on the current (q.v. Nansen and the Fram).

Ice Floes move far quicker because of the wind.

Amundsen was very fortunate in that the wind had blown the ice north which was a rarity
Unlike his predecessors he followed a known route previously traversed by other exhibitions, so he did not have any dead ends and he also had alternatives. He had good maps, years of climate observations and a wealth of information provided by sealers and whalers.

He also focused on speed and did not mess around with any science.

 

 

[trastrick]

18 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Clutching at straws again.

Sea Ice extent minimum is around 14th of September. Another six weeks.

The cruise ship window is August and September.

Already 90% of the route between the Beaufort Sea and the Davis Straight is clear enough.

Don't rely on single point data 

 

Below is yesterdays Sea Ice Concentration map which is an estimate based on satellite observation:

 

Amundsen, like his predecessors knew the difference between the ice floes and the pack ice.

No sailing ship would attempt to cut through Pack ice, but most did have to make their way through the floes

Pack Ice move slowly on the current (q.v. Nansen and the Fram).

Ice Floes move far quicker because of the wind.

Amundsen was very fortunate in that the wind had blown the ice north which was a rarity
Unlike his predecessors he followed a known route previously traversed by other exhibitions, so he did not have any dead ends and he also had alternatives. He had good maps, years of climate observations and a wealth of information provided by sealers and whalers.

He also focused on speed and did not mess around with any science.

 

 

Talk about "clutching at straws" 

 

But are the latest NOAA Sea Ice and Temperature data, "catastrophic"? 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by trastrick

[ads36]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

But are the latest NOAA Sea Ice and Temperature data, "catastrophic"? 

as an isolated data point?

clearly not.

 

as part of a predicted, and observable trend?

yes.

 

one for the philosophers : is it a catastrophe if it takes decades to happen?

 

100+ years of ignoring science.

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by ads36

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

One for the philosophers : is it a catastrophe if it takes decades to happen?

 

100+ years of ignoring science.

 

But if our politicians are being dishonest about solutions, it will be too late to solve problems.

[Annie Bynnol]

50 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Talk about "clutching at straws" 

 

But are the latest NOAA Sea Ice and Temperature data, "catastrophic"? 

 

Since you introduced and repeatedly use the word 'catastrophic' in relation to climate you must have some idea what you mean.

To help you here are some thread where you bang on about 'catastrophe' and 'climate' with more than whiff of American politics:

60% Of The Amazon Rain Forest Will Be Gone By 2050 But We Still Demand More

Greta Thunberg

Coming Soon: Climate Lockdowns?

Coronavirus - Part Three

Cop27 And The Climate Change

Grey Skies, Nothing But Grey Skies..

 

As ""catastrophic"" is something that cannot be measured as it is a qualitative term that I would not use.

It also usually used to describe a discrete event after it happened whereas weather and climate are dynamic.

You repeatedly use one selected observation and even attempt to justify a viewpoint which covers all climatological data.

You ignore data represented as trends even though they are an accumulation of the very data you use.

 

Like the 'climate activists' you fail to grasp the science and the statistics, latch on to an imaginary fact to make a political point.

Asking such a daft question establishes that you have very little understanding about about our dynamic climate. 

[trastrick]

19 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Since you introduced and repeatedly use the word 'catastrophic' in relation to climate you must have some idea what you mean.

To help you here are some thread where you bang on about 'catastrophe' and 'climate' with more than whiff of American politics:

60% Of The Amazon Rain Forest Will Be Gone By 2050 But We Still Demand More

Greta Thunberg

Coming Soon: Climate Lockdowns?

Coronavirus - Part Three

Cop27 And The Climate Change

Grey Skies, Nothing But Grey Skies..

 

As ""catastrophic"" is something that cannot be measured as it is a qualitative term that I would not use.

It also usually used to describe a discrete event after it happened whereas weather and climate are dynamic.

You repeatedly use one selected observation and even attempt to justify a viewpoint which covers all climatological data.

You ignore data represented as trends even though they are an accumulation of the very data you use.

 

Like the 'climate activists' you fail to grasp the science and the statistics, latch on to an imaginary fact to make a political point.

Asking such a daft question establishes that you have very little understanding about about our dynamic climate. 

Lol

 

Asking "is it catastrophic" is a not making an "imaginary point", when there are literally $TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, being proposed to "mitigate" "THE PROBLEM", of "climate change", by politicians, international agencies, such as the U.N., WMO, WTO, and the like.

 

Especially when the money, has to come from government's, ever spiraling, unsustainable (The Guardian) National Debts, which are being passed along to generations yet unborn,

 

To solve a "problem", you must first define it.

 

And you don't get your information from the MSM, Greta, Al Gore, or the ex 23 yeard old bartender, who's Green New Deal, has been estimated to cost up to $93,000,000.000,000.00,

or The. Guardian.

[trastrick]

Here's today's latest published reports on temperature (NOAA)

 

Arctic Sea Ice extent  (NSIDC).

 

Antarctic sea ice extent. (NSIDC)

 

 

 

 

 

It is, what it is!