Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. Everything we do releases carbon dioxide, so the Carbon Cult want to control everything. There will be global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades will be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Getting to Net Zero by 2050 would cost $9.2 trillion a year globally (McKinsey). That's not going to be good value for money. That's nearly one-tenth of global GDP. That money would be better spent on a myriad of things including educating the fifth of humanity who are illiterate and represent a 7% annual loss to the world's economy. Any country that attempts it will be indebted or impoverished. Example: For the UK to reach net zero by electrification of its transport fleet and heating system, it will require a tripling (as a minimum) of its current electrical generation capacity among other things. This will essentially require the UK consuming all of the current global supply of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years. The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the Earth. 10,000 child slaves in the cobalt mines of the Congo not enough for you? Make it a million. Imagine all the human suffering and environmental damage done from all that resource extraction! It's pointless anyway. In just 8 years (prior to 2021) China emitted more CO2 than Britain did since the start of Industrial Revolution that began over 220 years ago! And China plans to vastly increase its coal fired generating capacity. An electric vehicle requires 6 times the mineral input compared to a conventional one, and the carbon cost is greater until you reach 80,000 miles. Production of all of these minerals has been mastered by China: a totalitarian communist regime that thinks nothing of the mass murder of its own citizens, imagine how much it cares about the rest of us. And why are we embarking on this great net zero crusade? For what? So someone can virtue signal by driving around in a Tesla. Maddeningly, there is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past.
    1
  28. @boss_albaner  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
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. Using children for propaganda purposes sounds like the 1930s. 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
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. @Franck R  Thanks for the numbered points it's a nice idea and helps with the discussion. In response 1-Greenland was not an exception if you read what I have written but part of a warming event that occurred around the Arctic and indeed the Northern Hemisphere. The treeline advanced to the shores of the Arctic, and the ocean was probably ice-free in the summer. This occurred in the current interglacial. That warming and subsequent cooling appears to be related to the Earth's obliquity, not CO2 conc. CO2 rose after the temperature and continued to rise eventhough the climate cooled overall for the past 5000 years. 2-I agree it's going to be a curve or something more sinuous in reality and maybe in this curve we should include the heat of the 1930s and the cooling through to the 70s. Maybe we should include the bit for there being no overall warming for the last 8 years. 3-I accept a 1°C warming has already occurred. Indeed the warming started prior to the Industrial Revolution and any large increase in man-made CO2. What's that all about? That 1°C of warming is also a further indicator not to be alarmed as humanity has adapted to it magnificently. There has never been a more prosperous time to be alive. Another degree of warming will be adapted to. I reiterate it is highly unlikely we will see your required 0.5°C of warming per decade proposed by the models. These models run too hot as evidenced by the IPCC. 4-Thereis nothing unusual about glaciers receding or advancing. Check out Jakobshavn. As regards your worries of other environmental consequences there appears very little of concern.The IPCC has concluded that since 1900 there is “no trend in the frequency of USA landfall events.” This goes for all hurricanes and also for the strongest hurricanes, called major hurricanes, and that there remains “no consensus” on the relative role of human influences on Atlantic hurricane activity. On floods, the IPCC has little to say, conceding that: "Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies". And again with droughts the data long term and short term for North America and Europe shows no long term trends. With dangerous feedbacks and thresholds I am going to reject those ideas as the Earth's climate is a multi input thermodynamic system and will conform to Le Chatelier's Principle. To draw this to a conclusion for now as I doubt very much we are going to sway each other, such is human psychology, I'll make you a deal. If in 10 years the Earth has warmed 0.5°C I'll agree with you and it's code red for humanity. On the other hand if it's 0.1°C, you'll take a chill 😎 pill 💊 and stop having nightmares. Life's too short.
    1
  46. 1
  47. ​@Muddslinger0415 Another artless piece of propaganda from the BBC. As of Sunday 23rd July the Eastern US (except Florida) is in a cold anomaly. I.e. it is colder than average for July. Looking across the Northern Hemisphere the following are also large anomalous cold areas: Northern Europe, Western Russia, Mongolia, Manchuria, and Tibet. This is all weather, not catastrophic man-made climate change. No temperature records have been broken in Europe. Rome was supposed to have broken its, but it wasn't as hot as in 1841. Greece is nowhere near its record of 48°C set way back in 1977. As the report admits it was hotter 50 years ago! There is nothing unusual about the fire season in Europe. Weekly burn area is way below average. Cumulative burn area is average. Weekly Number of fires are below average. Cumulative number of fires are bang in the middle of the normal range. The same is true for Greece, and the fires at present are a tiny fraction of the maximum recorded (EFFIS). There's no trend for wildfires in Greece. Note that annual Global Wildfire Carbon Emissions have been declining dramatically since 2003, with 2022 being the lowest on record (Copernicus). "Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). So Antarctica isn't melting. Then there's the breathless gibberish about Phoenix. Phoenix was incorporated in 1881, NOAA only has continuous data from around 1940. So recorded history for Phoenix in this instance is about 80 years (not that long climatically) and the record for 1930s (when heatwaves were much worse) is mostly incomplete. Also Phoenix's population has expanded exponentially in that time from a few tens of thousands to a few million. This has dramatically increased the Urban Heat Island effect resulting in temperatures 10°F (5°C) higher during the day (Scientific American, 2019). This alone explains the record high temperatures. As I'm sure everyone is aware, Phoenix is in the Sonoran desert, which is characterised by long summers and extremely high temperatures. And that's exactly what's happening. There's nothing unusual or unexpected here. Then tag the floods in: 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. The news story is purposely catatrophising the weather to unnecessarily scare people into changing their way of life. There is no global climate crisis. This is an appalling piece of journalism by the BBC.
    1
  48. 1
  49. @Niko257x  Oh dear, you poor thing. Just because you lack the ability to find the material I clearly referenced doesn't make it a lie. You also appear to have trouble discerning exactly the points I'm trying to make. For example although there is evidence for a mild warming, I did not say that was "human caused". You are putting words in my mouth. That's naughty. I gave referenced evidence that this was a good thing e.g. reduced mortality from extreme temperatures. The point I'm trying to make in this commentary is that the warming that is occurring is within the rate and range of what has occurred in the recent past. Again without reference to it being "human caused". Dramatic changes in climate are perfectly natural and normal on this planet and have never required any human input. Your use of Wikipedia as a reference source is laughable: a schoolboy error. It is probably the kernel of your problem. You don't (or can't) go back to the original sources of data and evaluate them. You just take what you're given. When it comes to "the warming" I can quote you upwards of 100 recent peer reviewed published scientific papers that show both qualitatively and quantitatively that the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than the Current Warm Period. Around 1700AD the Little Ice which again was a global event reached its nadir with temperatures possibly 2°C lower than present. Warming proceeded hesitantly from that point (so before the onset of the Industrial Revolution). With initial rapid warming then a cooling in the earlier 1800s, followed by rapid warming again in the early part of the 20th century where the average daily maxima records were set (1930s) and remain extant to this day. There followed a general cooling in the mid-century which lasted until the latter 1970s. Since that point there has been a hesitant warming of 0.13°C per decade (UAH v6). My précis of the Current Warm Period is a little simplistic for brevity as it has been neither consistent nor rapid both temporally and spatially. The warming isn't even "global", and I can reference data on that if you wish. When it comes to extreme weather e.g. hurricanes, there's little or no change. The reason begin there's been some warming at the northerly latitudes but not in the tropics, so the temperature gradient across the northern hemisphere (that drives the wind) is reduced. "Basic thermodynamics". Don't take my word for it: From the NOAA GFDL website 'Global Warming and Hurricanes, An Overview of Current Research' (dated Feb. 9, 2023). And I quote "We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes."
    1
  50. 1