Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joanapersoa The Earth has certainly not lost that percentage of wildlife to extinction.
Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 908 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN Red List), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data).
Take bird species: 11,195 have been counted (not estimated). All of these have been assessed by the IUCN. They catalogued 4 bird species became extinct over the course of 28 years between 1988 and 2016. That's 1.4 per decade or an annual extinction rate of 0.001%.
Also the proportion of species assessed as threatened by the IUCN has declined rapidly over time, from 65% in 2000 (11,000 out of 17,000) to 28% in 2024 (46,000 out of 166,000). This increasingly positive outcome of their species assessments is only accelerating as time passes.
Using IUCN data on assessed species- Amphibian species extinct 0.009% per decade. Mammals 0.029% per decade. Reptiles 0.006% per decade. Fish 0.006% per decade. Insects 0.009% per decade.
1
-
1
-
The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@8fledermaus8 Sea level appears to be rising at a small 3mm per year. Atolls in the Pacific nations of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, as well as the Maldives archipelago in the Indian Ocean, have risen up to 8 percent in size (Ford and Kench, 2020). 89% of the globe’s islands and 100% of large islands have stable or growing coasts (Duvat, 2019). No island larger than 10ha decreased in size.
As regards NOAA tide gauge data, let's look at some examples from around the world. N.B. All sites show a linear Relative Sea Level Trend: Kanmen, China 2.40mm/yr; Sydney, Australia 0.75mm/yr; Ferandina Beach, Florida 2.20mm/yr; Los Angeles, California 1.04mm/yr; Mera, Japan 3.8mm; Cascais, Portugal 1.32mm/yr. Remember, all linear over many decades, or more than a century. No acceleration (or deceleration for that matter).
Anyway, if you prefer satellite data NOAA's trend was +3.0mm/year Global Mean Sea Level (1993-2022), again linear last time I looked (but hey, it may have accelerated in the last month).
NASA satellite data (1993-present) for Global Mean Sea Level shows a linear rise of 3.3mm per year. That's the same as two stacked penny coins.
All linear. No acceleration, so no relationship to the exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It's going to be decades before even your big toe is submerged.
1
-
@Wormkiller-v8e Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Mean precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HenelingThere is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Mean precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More propaganda from Auntie Beeb. Notice the use of the phrase "climate fears". That's the giveaway. The reality of course is there is no evidence we are in a global climate crisis. As regards flooding, the U.N. IPCC admits having “low confidence” in even the “sign” of any changes—in other words, it is just as likely that climate change is making floods less frequent and less severe. In a study on the climate impact on flooding for the USA and Europe, published in the Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717, the study found:
‘The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone.’
‘Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.’
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded (Hartmann et al., 2013) that globally there is no clear and widespread evidence of changes in flood magnitude or frequency in observed flood records.’
‘The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.’
This video is fear-mongering without substance. There is no climate crisis, just synthetic climate fear.
1
-
@astronautical1082 As regards ocean acidification, it is estimated that the ocean’s global mean surface pH may have declined (i.e., become less alkaline and thus more “acidic”) by -0.07 to -0.08 in the last 200 years — from pH8.12 during pre-industrial times to 8.04 to 8.05 today (Wei et al, 2015). N.B. The decline in pH occurred before 1930.
However, and very importantly when you look the data after CO2 emissions began rising precipitously in the 1930s, the oceans have become less “acidic”!!!
By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by ±0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years. On a per-decade scale, the changes are even more pronounced. Oceanic pH values naturally fluctuate up and down by up to 0.6 U within a span of a decade, with an overall range between 7.66 and 8.40. This decadal rate of pH change is larger than the overall 200-year span (0.07-0.08) by a factor of 8. Indeed the daily noted maximum pH range of 0.7 (Santos et al. 2011) is far greater than the overall change predicted between now and the end of the century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@astronautical1082
Warming events in the Cenozoic do not correlate to mass extinction. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum PETM (55mya), a time when the Earth warmed rapidly to temperatures far in excess of today's, only resulted in a noticeable extinction of some benthic foraminifera. That was so small of an event it doesn't even show up on a marine extinction intensity chart for the Phanerozoic. There was, in fact, a more general flourishing of life at that point, especially terrestrial. Many major mammal groups appeared and spread around the globe including hyaenodontids, artiodactyls, perissodactyls, and primates. So if he's right we've got that to look forward to. The next largest extinction event, since the dinosaurs bit the big one, is the Eocene-Oligocene transition ("Grande Coupure" = The Great Rupture). This seems to have been connected with cooling (rapid Antarctic glaciation), not warming.
1
-
1
-
The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change:
Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution.
increased lightning: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution.
There is no climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change:
Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments
Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution.
Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend
(14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence).
Ecological Drought as above.
Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend.
43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence).
So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Tropical Cyclones.
How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6?
"There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions."
"There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions."
"Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)."
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
1
-
@andrew30m The planet may be warming in places but not as predicted. There's very little else that can be discerned and attributed to humans climatically.
Apart from Fire Weather, the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Mean precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
Scientists do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC report. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. This is policy based evidence making, not evidence based policy making. It's atrocious.
The IPCC was set up to find man-made global warming and when you look for something you find it, and indeed they have on the face of it, but when you look deeper you find a dearth of real evidence.
Take AR5, that says all observed warming (0.66°C) since 1950 is due to combined anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 10.5, IPCC core writing team, page 6). This relies upon modelling, or rather multi-modelling. In fact when you lift the curtain it relies on 15 models (Fig. 10.4, page 882). These models are all over the place. The models' results are not consistent with the assumption that there is a clear connection between GHGs and warming. GISS-EH-2 is particularly 'not well constrained' as the terminology goes. "Scaling factors" then have to be applied so things fit with the HadCRUT dataset. Some of the scaling factors are even negative! So many scientists/politicians may have reached a consensus, but the science on which that has been built shows no such agreement.
1
-
1
-
@Mtdna5 There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Mean precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
Britain currently has 39.3 GWh of pumped storage. There are 4 pumped storage stations in Britain. No meaningful storage capacity has been added to the grid since the 1980s, and there is no other large scale energy storage in the country.
To cover a cold dark still winter you would need to increase pumped storage capacity by a factor of about 1000 (taking into account pumped storage is about 75% efficient). So we would need to find 4000 suitable locations where a 300 to 400m dam can be built to hold back 10 million cubic metres of water, with a fall to the turbines below of about 400 metres.
Then we would have to build 160 of these every year, year after year, for 25 years.
The scale, and the massive cost of storage, by whatever method (pumped storage is one of the cheapest by the way), make it an impossible mission.
"Wind droughts" where electrical generation runs at 20% of capacity lasting 100 days or more can be expected once every 50 years. This would see a shortfall of 2TWh at current capacities.
665TWh electricity is projected to come from wind power in 2050 (National Grid). Current wind power 75TWh (2020).
350TWh of Hydrogen storage would exceed by a considerable margin the current annual electrical generation in the UK (~300TWh). It would also be more than 50% of electrical consumption in 2050.
Hydrogen storage is also one of the more expensive energy storage strategies at $203/MWh. Pumped storage $131/TWh with gas generated about half of the latter (At 2021 prices researched by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory).
Let's look at it another way. The Royal Society recommend the UK should have 100TWh of energy storage (it's currently 39.3 GWh from 4 pumped storage facilities). That's over a 2,500 fold increase. That means building 10,000 pumped storage facilities or 400 every year.
That's at the same time as increasing wind power generation from 75TWh (in 2020) to 665TWh (in 2050 - these are UK National Grid figures). That's around 100,000 giant wind turbines. And by the time you get to 2050, the 4,000 wind turbines you needed to install in 2025 would have reached the end of their working lives and will need to be buried in landfill, and replaced with another 4,000. It's all impossible and absurd.
1
-
As regards the melting of Arctic Ice, the records nearly always seem to start in 1979. Strange that, considering it was a year of record extent for Arctic Ice. Even so, data from NOAA (2022 Arctic Report Card) show winter (March) ice coverage has hardly changed since '79, and that the summer (September) coverage trend had stopped declining since 2007. How inconvenient! Didn't someone predict in 2007 Arctic ice free by 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or in 5 years? Or was it in 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also predicted in 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 prediction: Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 prediction: snow will be gone by 2020. And 2013 star prediction: Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 prediction: zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. The Arctic Ice is still there, and it's stopped shrinking.
If you consider global sea ice cover, it was basically flat from 1981 to 2008, rose until 2010, stayed level until 2015, dropped until 2018, and then rebounded almost all the way back to the 1990-2000 average. Nobody predicted theses changes, nor can they explain them. The changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is make-believe.
Multiyear ice is an unproductive habitat as far as marine organisms are concerned: first year (seasonal) ice over continental shelves is the most productive and this is where the vast majority of polar bears, seals, fish, whales, and sea birds are found. Therefore the decline of extremely thick multiyear ice (>4 years old) could be seen as an unconcerning development with regards to the wildlife in the region, especially since 2-3 year old ice that can be used as a resting/hunting platform for seals and polar bears hasn't declined in summer since 2007. In fact, biologically, the Arctic is in good shape with all its regions showing a positive trend in primary productivity over an extended period (2003-2022). This has resulted in more food for seals, walruses, bowhead whales and polar bears, which are hence maintaining or expanding their populations.
There's no "death spiral" in the region as some people reported. In fact, there is, as I say, no evidence of any crisis/emergency. That is silly nonsense designed to scare people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1