Climate Change Watch

[Guided Missile]

Fire Weather...

[badgerx16]

Your point being?

GM doesn't have a point, he's just blasting out random articles to try to reinforce an already debunked line of ******. Trump does it much better.

Edit:

Or perhaps he just finds amusement in images of peoples houses being destroyed by fires or floods.

( To quote GM; "You've got to laugh..." )

Edited 10 February, 2020 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

While natural weather patterns have driven recent fires, researchers said it's "common sense" that human-induced heating is playing a role.

Christ only knows where these "researchers" come from, but they are now equating climate change with weather patterns. No wonder they are now looking like unscientific chumps...gathering the climate cultists along with them. Re-read the above and try and justify the statement, in the light of today's weather in Australia...

[jawillwill]

Fire Weather...

 

What would you call it?

[buctootim]

Christ only knows where these "researchers" come from, but they are now equating climate change with weather patterns..

 

You think climate change doesn't affect weather patterns?

[buctootim]

[Guided Missile]

You think climate change doesn't affect weather patterns?

Read the quote. It said "human-induced heating", not climate change. I was being charitable using the term climate change. "human-induced heating", "common sense"??

 

[buctootim]

Read the quote. It said "human-induced heating", not climate change. I was being charitable using the term climate change. "human-induced heating", "common sense"??

 

They knew you'd struggle with 'anthropogenic'

[Guided Missile]

 

I like graphs:

 

[Guided Missile]

They knew you'd struggle with 'anthropogenic'

Classy...

[Lighthouse]

Without wanting to indulge GM and his fantasies, the jet stream does seem to be getting stronger and stronger. The record for a transatlantic NY-London flight has been broken multiple times over the last few years and yesterday several aircraft posted a sub 5 hour flight time.

[Doctoroncall]

Without wanting to indulge GM and his fantasies, the jet stream does seem to be getting stronger and stronger. The record for a transatlantic NY-London flight has been broken multiple times over the last few years and yesterday several aircraft posted a sub 5 hour flight time.

 

Technology improvements.

 

Love the straight line prediction on what looks like a cubic curve. The goodness of fit must be off the scale!

[shurlock]

Technology improvements.

 

Love the straight line prediction on what looks like a cubic curve. The goodness of fit must be off the scale!

 

This isn’t a graph GM can’t butcher. He’s not Pompey Poly’s second most famous graduate for nothing.

[Weston Super Saint]

Technology improvements.

 

 

So definitely not the 200+MPH winds?

[Whitey Grandad]

The BBC on the 14th January 2020:

 

The BBC this morning:

 

Too right! We are in Sydney for a few days and Sunday was unbelievable. Parts of Sydney had over 200mm of rain in 24 hours and this was on top of the previous few days of torrential downpours. Severe disruption on the railways and widespread flooding all along the East Coast.

 

These prolonged rain storms are caused by an ‘East Coast Low’ and are not common events occurring every ten to fifteen years. But the widespread fires occur on a similar frequency. According to the authorities some 18% of them are caused by arson or suspicious activity.

 

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/fire/fire-facts

[Lighthouse]

Technology improvements.

 

Love the straight line prediction on what looks like a cubic curve. The goodness of fit must be off the scale!

 

The record was set by an aircraft which has been in service since the late 1980s.

[Whitey Grandad]

The record was set by an aircraft which has been in service since the late 1980s.

 

We also have a better knowledge of the jet streams today and can take more advantage of them.

[aintforever]

Without wanting to indulge GM and his fantasies, the jet stream does seem to be getting stronger and stronger. The record for a transatlantic NY-London flight has been broken multiple times over the last few years and yesterday several aircraft posted a sub 5 hour flight time.

 

Could that be more due to the jet stream changing position because if climate change, creating more extreme winds in the usual flight path?

[Lighthouse]

We also have a better knowledge of the jet streams today and can take more advantage of them.

 

Could that be more due to the jet stream changing position because if climate change, creating more extreme winds in the usual flight path?

 

We've always known where the strongest wind were, roughly and the North Atlantic tracks are planned daily to take advantage of them. Westbound flights avoid it as much as possible, eastbound try and get right into the core of it. There are 5 oceanic paths published each day and flights are planned to best suit the winds for their route. If this kind of wind had been seen before, for such a widespread area of the North Atlantic, someone would have at least recorded a time close to the ones we saw yesterday.

 

From what I've seen at least three aircraft beat last years record by nearly 20 minutes. A fourth aircraft into Gatwick was even faster than the one which made all the headlines but had to abandon it's approach and divert.

[buctootim]

I got back from New York in 5 hours 15 mins about 15 years ago. It was so exceptional then that when i told people about it no-one believed me.

[Whitey Grandad]

I got back from New York in 5 hours 15 mins about 15 years ago. It was so exceptional then that when i told people about it no-one believed me.

 

I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

 

Will global warming mean less fogs?

[buctootim]

I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

 

Will global warming mean less fogs?

 

Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?

[Whitey Grandad]

Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?

 

Yes, but not by much an yes, partly. Fog is due to moisture in the air as much as anything.

[Lighthouse]

I came back from Boston about 40 years ago in less than five hours. Then spent a further six hours in a hold over a Oxford, flying up to Prestwick to refuel and then flying down to Heathrow. Something about the fog.

 

Will global warming mean less fogs?

 

Boston is a bit closer than NYC though tbf. Fog is caused by cold air on warm ground isnt it?

 

Opposite way around, warmer air over cooler ground. It forms in different ways but away from the coast it is usually radiation fog, which forms on long, cool nights with little cloud cover and a wind of 2-8 knots.

 

Yes, but not by much an yes, partly. Fog is due to moisture in the air as much as anything.

 

It’s down to the gap between the temperature and dew point. When the air cools to equal the DP, then fog forms. I don’t think climate change will affect it as such.

[Batman]

https://albertapressleader.ca/professor-writes-critical-open-letter-to-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/?fbclid=IwAR0p4zS3Z9TVepi4veKJFy0u91HBjDLl2K5w4VPqEwh-ECJ8RBkH_1LANe0

[scally]

[aintforever]

https://albertapressleader.ca/professor-writes-critical-open-letter-to-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/?fbclid=IwAR0p4zS3Z9TVepi4veKJFy0u91HBjDLl2K5w4VPqEwh-ECJ8RBkH_1LANe0

 

From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.

[Whitey Grandad]

From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.

 

Professor is a job description and not a qualification anyway.

[buctootim]

From a professor of philosophy, not climate science.

 

Yeah but DePaul University is ranked 125th in the country, only slightly behind giants of academia like Gonzaga University in Spokane. Its natural their academics will be experts in everything.

[dsr-burnley]

No, it was much lower. It was released at an average rate of 0.24 Gt per year over 50,000 years.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23646

 

Currently we're emitting around 10 Gt per year and, surprise surprise, the rate of warming over the last 100 or so years is about ten times greater than at any point in the records from which your graph was based.

 

I've seen this sort of stat about global warming published before, and I'm interested to know how anyone can possibly know this. After all, to say categorically that the temperature rise between 5 million BC and 4,999,900 BC was less than today, you need to know pretty exactly what the figures were for those two years. Where is the data?

[sadoldgit]

Don’t they find this stuff out through ice cores?

[Guided Missile]

Don’t they find this stuff out through ice cores?

5 million year old ice cores? Silly old s0d...

[sadoldgit]

5 million year old ice cores? Silly old s0d...

 

Silly me. They only go back 2.7 million years. D’oh.

[scally]

It would be interesting to see if anybody on here can explain the levels of Co2 compared to temperature, seems there is no correlation between temperature and Co2 or none that explains recent warming

 

https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/heat-fell-from-1930s-peak-co2-is-greening-earth-marine-life-began-in-10x-higher-co2-and-climate-d10d3c6c6d06

[Sheaf Saint]

It would be interesting to see if anybody on here can explain the levels of Co2 compared to temperature, seems there is no correlation between temperature and Co2 or none that explains recent warming

 

https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/heat-fell-from-1930s-peak-co2-is-greening-earth-marine-life-began-in-10x-higher-co2-and-climate-d10d3c6c6d06

 

Jeez Scally! Did you even bother to take one second to research who this guy is and what is agenda is?

 

https://twitter.com/Gary_Bernstein

 

Yeah, he's totally qualified to be contradicting the entire world's climate science community isn't he

Edited 12 March, 2020 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

And in response to your initial query if anyone can explain the levels of CO2 compared to temperature, start with this...

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

 

"We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming."

 

But yeah, let's just accept the word of a blockchain-selling Trump supporter instead.

[scally]

Jeez Scally! Did you even bother to take one second to research who this guy is and what is agenda is?

 

https://twitter.com/Gary_Bernstein

 

Yeah, he's totally qualified to be contradicting the entire world's climate science community isn't he

 

Jeez Sheaf I don't care who that guy is, that graph is all over the net and doesn't show CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere being anywhere near in sinc.

How about this https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/ The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats

[aintforever]

that graph is all over the net

 

Is that supposed to mean it’s correct?

[scally]

Is that supposed to mean it’s correct?

 

No but it also doesn't mean it's incorrect

[scally]

Here's a video about your old mate Michael Mann Sheaf

 

[aintforever]

No but it also doesn't mean it's incorrect

 

So it means nothing then. Great post.

[buctootim]

The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats

 

Hm. The IPCC is made up of members / delegates nominated by each of the 195 member countries. If they agree on anthropogenic climate change it’s because either 1. All 195 countries are corrupt or 2. They agree on the science. I know which one I’m going for.

[Sheaf Saint]

Jeez Sheaf I don't care who that guy is, that graph is all over the net and doesn't show CO2 and temperature in the atmosphere being anywhere near in sinc.

 

Well you really should care who he is, because being able to differentiate between credible sources and fraudulent ones is a crucial skill in science.

 

Just because lots of people have shared that graph, you think that must make it valid? Do you actually have the slightest idea how moronic that logic is?

 

What are your thoughts on the journal article I shared with you detailing an actual scientific study by actual climate scientists who categorically contradict what this crackpot bloke of yours says?

 

How about this https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/ The IPCC is totally corrupt and continues to manipulate stats

 

Interesting. I clicked on the link for the first quote for Dr Robert Balling (surprise surprise, he's heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry too. It's almost like there'e a recurring theme with these people!). The article that the link takes you to is this...

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-11.pdf

 

And, lo and behold, the individual quote has - once again - been taken completely out of context. The whole section reads like this...

 

"A common perception is that the rate of sea level rise should

have accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century. The tide

gauge data for the 20th century show no significant acceleration

(e.g., Douglas, 1992). We have obtained estimates based on

AOGCMs for the terms directly related to anthropogenic climate

change in the 20th century, i.e., thermal expansion (Section

11.2.1.2), ice sheets (Section 11.2.3.3), glaciers and ice caps

(Section 11.5.1.1) (Figure 11.10a). The estimated rate of sea level

rise from anthropogenic climate change ranges from 0.3 to

0.8 mm/yr (Figure 11.10b). These terms do show an acceleration

through the 20th century (Figure 11.10a,b). If the terrestrial

storage terms have a negative sum (Section 11.2.5), they may

offset some of the acceleration in recent decades. The total

computed rise (Figure 11.10c) indicates an acceleration of only

0.2 mm/yr/century, with a range from −1.1 to +0.7 mm/yr/century,

consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea

level rise during the 20th century (Section 11.3.2.2). The sum of

terms not related to recent climate change is −1.1 to +0.9 mm/yr

(i.e., excluding thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps, and

changes in the ice sheets due to 20th century climate change). This

range is less than the observational lower bound of sea level rise.

Hence it is very likely that these terms alone are an insufficient

explanation, implying that 20th century climate change has made

a contribution to 20th century sea level rise."

 

And from the executive summary of the report...

 

"It is very likely that 20th century warming has contributed significantly

to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion

of sea water and widespread loss of land ice. "

 

Seriously Scally, stop making such a fool of yourself by believing and repeating any old boll*cks you read online that just happens to fit with your own preconceptions.

Edited 13 March, 2020 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

Here's a video about your old mate Michael Mann Sheaf

 

 

Yes, and it's just a repeat of all the same old nonsense you have previously shared which has been completely and utterly de-bunked time and time again.

 

For the last f*cking time Scally, Michael Mann did not commit fraud, and the findings of his 1998 study have been repeatedly reproduced and supported, using the same raw data that has been available to the public for a very long time. The continued campaign against him is just out of desperation from those determined to protect the profitability of fossil fuels at any cost, and does not stand up to any actual facts.

[scally]

The science was settled back in 77 I guess

 

[Sheaf Saint]

The science was settled back in 77 I guess

 

 

Well no, because there is no valid research underpinning this film at all. And our understanding of climate science has improved drastically since it was made.

 

The USA had a particularly cold and severe winter in 1977, and someone made a film about what might happen to society if we were to experience another ice age. It's just pure speculation.

 

Interestingly, the only bit of real science discussed in the film, by the guy talking about the sea cores and how the information they provide corresponds to the Milankovitch cycles, blatantly contradicts your whole argument. Under these astronomical cycles, which affect the shape of the earth's orbit and rotation, we should be heading into another ice age, but we're quite obviously not. The GMST is still rising year on year and record temperatures continue to be broken.

[scally]

Well no, because there is no valid research underpinning this film at all. And our understanding of climate science has improved drastically since it was made.

 

The USA had a particularly cold and severe winter in 1977, and someone made a film about what might happen to society if we were to experience another ice age. It's just pure speculation.

 

Interestingly, the only bit of real science discussed in the film, by the guy talking about the sea cores and how the information they provide corresponds to the Milankovitch cycles, blatantly contradicts your whole argument. Under these astronomical cycles, which affect the shape of the earth's orbit and rotation, we should be heading into another ice age, but we're quite obviously not. The GMST is still rising year on year and record temperatures continue to be broken.

 

I'm 55 mate and I can tell you this film shows exactly what we were being told back in the day, you can't move the goalposts just because they don't suit. How do you know we won't be going into another ice age in the near future, what proof have you got to back u what you say? I'd love to know how you think we are going live with out fossil fuels, wind [take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape] and solar panels just won't cut it, what do you suggest?

[badgerx16]

With the World in corona-lockdown the levels of atmospheric pollution being pumped out by road, rail, and air should decrease significantly.

[badgerx16]

.....take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape....

Aesthetics trump environment ?

[Sheaf Saint]

I'm 55 mate and I can tell you this film shows exactly what we were being told back in the day

 

So let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly... You believe that just because what some climatologists were saying in the 1970s turned out to be wrong, they must therefore also be wrong now? Is that your contention?

 

The full impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures was not well understood up until that time. But, interestingly, the year of the extreme winter that your video was made in response to (1977) was the same year that Exxon became aware of it, and then proceeded to spend the next few decades spending $millions to cover it up:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

This was the beginning of the denialist movement that continues to this day, to which every single contributor you have so far linked to can be connected (usually financially) in some way.

 

Then came the beginning of the research being carried out by people outside of the fossil fuel industry, which confirms everything they knew and predicted over 40 years ago. Since then, our understanding of the Earth's climate and energy balance etc... has continued to improve exponentially. The observed warming in the late 20th/early 21st century simply cannot be explained by natural radiative forcings. It is only when you input the effect of the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 into the models that they correlate with the observational data.

 

 

You may be 55 and 10 years my senior, but I have a BSc hons degree in environmental science, so believe me when I say I know a damn sight more about this subject than you do (or think you do).

 

How do you know we won't be going into another ice age in the near future, what proof have you got to back u what you say?

 

It hardly seems worthwhile me presenting any evidence, because you will probably only ignore it like you have with everything else I have shared with you so far. But here goes...

 

The current rate of warming negates the possibility of an ice age in the near future. Since that video was made, glaciers have shrunk, not expanded; Arctic sea ice has receded year on year, huge chunks of the Antarctic ice shelf have been lost. Only last year, there were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic.

 

 

I'd love to know how you think we are going live with out fossil fuels, wind [take a drive through the Sierra Nevada's and you'll see how wind turbines destroy the look of the landscape] and solar panels just won't cut it, what do you suggest?

 

At some point we will have to live without fossil fuels. By their very definition, they are not sustainable. So if we are going to have to come up with other ways of powering our energy-intensive economic activities, do you not think it would make perfect sense to start researching and introducing them as early as possible, rather than wait until the fossil fuels run out and we haven't got a means of replacing them?

 

Wind farms, like solar farms, are obviously not a large-scale solution. Their power per square metre stats are not good, and they are not reliable enough to form a large part of the energy mix. They do have their place though, through micro-generation at a local level.

 

Of course, the big hope is that nuclear fusion will finally be perfected in the near future, and will provide all the clean energy we will ever need. There has long been a running joke that this technology is always 30 years away, but there have been large strides taken in recent years towards making it viable. Until it is, we have to look at other ways. People don't like nuclear fission energy, mostly based on fear due to what happened in Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. But modern plants have all kinds of fail-safes bulit in which negate the possibility of either of those scenarios happening again. They are not carbon-neutral, of course, and the costs of construction and decommissioning are astronomical, but they generate far less CO2e per KWh than coal or gas powered plants.

 

We could, of course, just commit to using less energy overall and improving public transport. But unfortunately that's not compatible with the short-sightedness of neoliberal economics, which my studies showed me unequivocally is the root cause of pretty much all of the world's environmental and ecological problems.