Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "Climate crisis at 'new level of seriousness' says Al Gore - BBC News" video.

Then he gets back on his jet, and Foxtrot Oscar to one of his costal mansions. This man has made a fortune from climate hysteria.
95
@8fledermaus8 You're getting weather events mixed-up with climate. Food production: Between 1961 and 2021 cereal production increased 250% and cereal yield increased over 200%. Land used for cereal hardly increased (Data from World Bank, FAO/UN). This is the only time in human history that you are more likely to be overfed rather than underfed. We should be thankful we were borne into an age of such abundance. A US DoE study (Taylor & Schlenker, 2021) estimated that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 led to an increase of 0.4%, 0.6% and 1% in yield for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively, and that CO2 increase was the main driver of the 500% yield growth in corn since 1940. Global tomato production has set a record each year for the past 10 years. All 10 of the largest sugar crops in global history occurred during the past 10 years. All 10 of the 10 largest rice crop years occurred during the past 10 years (UNFAO).
4
@8fledermaus8 If you took away El Niño, a record increase in Total Solar Irradiance, and the Tonga eruption (all natural events) there would be nothing to see. The Tonga eruption injected 142 megatonnes of water vapour into the stratosphere, increasing its water content by 15%. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Total solar irradiance: satellite data from 1979 onwards shows June 2023 at an all time high in over 40 years of measurements (ncei.noaa). There were lows below 1361 W/m² in 2019 to current highs over 1362 W/m² in June (using a lowess curve, which also shows the fastest rate of increase during this recent period). So we are looking at a change of around 1½ Watts over the course of 5 years (the maximum difference is 2.1W/m²). That may not sound much but it exceeds the increase in the Earth's Energy Imbalance (0.9 W/m², 2018 - 1.97 W/m², 2023) (NASA CERES EBAF TOA). Overall the current increase in solar irradiance should give a direct global heating effect of +0.1°C, with an indirect effect of +0.2°C (after Schmutz, 2021). This increase in solar irradiance is related to an earlier than expected increase in sunspot activity, which has not yet reached its zenith, and that may not happen for several years (Royal Observatory Belgium), so further heating from this cause can be expected. So increase in TSI 2019- 2023 = 2.1W/m2. Increase in EEI for the same period ≈ 1W/m². Maybe I'm being dense, but doesn't that mean that without the increase in TSI, the EEI would be in negative territory? Sea surface temperatures (SST) were trending downwards 2000-2018 (HadSST 4), and from 1950-1980, and from 1880-1910. The oceans warmed at a faster rate 1910-1940 than 1980-2010. Remember CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate all the time, so there is little correlation between the two. The ocean has warmed rapidly and repeatedly during the current interglacial with no correlation to CO2 e.g. 10,300-10,200 years before the present (y BP), 9,500y BP, 6,000-5,900y BP, 5,400-5,300y BP, 2,500-2,300y BP, 1,700-1,600y BP (Berner et al., 2008). There is a high frequency (18 events) of SST variability on the order of 1-3°C during a 10-50 year time resolution throughout the Holocene in the North Atlantic with no correlation to CO2.
3
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.
3
@8fledermaus8 Wildfire: Global burned area has decreased by one quarter this century! The World is burning less. For the whole of Canada, there is no trend in burn acreage for the period 1980-2021. The previous highest burn acreage was in 1989. Over that same period the trend for number of fires was slightly downwards (CNFDB). Note that 2020 had the lowest recorded burn acreage and number of fires, so can that record be attributed to man-made climate change? Burn acreage was much, much, higher in the US during the 1920's, 30's and 40's. It peaked in 1930 at well over 50,000,000 acres. The trend is downwards (1926-2020 NIFC US) eventhough CO2 has increased exponentially. For 2000 onwards the average burn acreage is much less than 10,000,000 acres. The number of fires has also declined. Remember CO2 was increasing all the time. Burn area for US so far in 2023 including Maui is 3rd lowest on record. Data for Siberia seems harder to come by. However, for the period 1997-2016, the trend was highly variable (by a factor of 4) but the trend for the annual burn acreage was downwards (Global Fire Data). For the Amazon (2003-2019), 2010 was the record year for fire emissions with all subsequent years lower by at least ½. When it comes to wildfires there is nothing unusual about this summer's fire season in Europe (look it up on the EFFIS website). Besides all this the forest fire record in Southern Europe is related to the previous winter rains, not summer temperatures. Wetter winters encourage more plant grow, which forms more fuel for fires when it dries out. Mediterranean summers are always hot and dry enough to allow fires to spread. Furthermore, with regard to the IPCC, they have not detected or attributed the number of fires or the burn acreage to man-made climate change. Also IPCC only has medium confidence ( that's a 50-50, so toss a coin) that weather conditions that promote wildfires (fire weather) have become more probable in southern Europe, northern Eurasia, the USA, and Australia over the last century. Note that annual Global Wildfire Carbon Emissions have been declining dramatically since 2003, with 2022 being the lowest on record (Copernicus). "With higher CO2, increased tree cover leads to reduced fire ignition and burned area, and provides a positive feedback to tree cover" (Chen et al, 2019), so burning fossil fuels actually leads to less forest fire! Global burned area has decreased by nearly by 24.2% in 20 years (Chen et al, 2023). The World is burning less! There is no climate crisis...there isn't even any evidence for it.
2
@8fledermaus8 The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Check out table 4. Furthermore, the Antarctic Peninsula ice has since been shown to be on the increase “The eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet has grown in area over the last 20 years, due to changing wind and sea ice patterns.” (University of Cambridge, May, 2022.) "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). It is from a paper entitled "Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019". They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019. Also, as the mass gain (661Gt) was given, you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high.
2
@@smelltheair8311 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. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
2
@8fledermaus8 That's an unfair and unfounded comment. I contend that I am none of those things. Your ad hominem remarks regarding my character are merely a diversion. It doesn't matter what I am. You are attempting to divert yourself and others from the facts, the objective reality, probably because it does not sit well with your own belief system regarding the world. You cannot argue against the facts so you insult me in the hope of downgrading the worth of those facts in order that you do not have to accept the truth, and damage your own internal narrative as that would be too uncomfortable for you.
2
@8fledermaus8 The correlation between temperature and CO2 if examined closely shows CO2 followed temperature with a lag of about 800 years at the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial. I.e. the ice core evidence for Pleistocene/Holocene shows temperature rise caused CO2 to rise not the other way around probably due to outgassing from a warmer ocean. In fact, it gets more complicated, when comparing temperature data from Greenland for the Holocene (GISP 2) with CO2 (EPICA ice dome c) the correlation from about 3,500 years ago onwards appears to be negative. The temperature fell first, then CO2 went up. So over time the correlation between temperature and CO2 is very poor.
2
@8fledermaus8 You say I misrepresent, but I reference my data sources so anybody can check. That is unlike you. You denigrate me and make sweeping statements without supporting references or evidence.
2
@8fledermaus8 When they are shown to be correlated the temperature rises first then the concentration of carbon dioxide rises. As I explained. As shown by the ice core data.
2
@8fledermaus8 The "weather events" are not "getting more powerful". There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! Climate change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022). Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. 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." Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. There is also no trend in the frequency of major hurricanes (Cat 3 +) for the same period, although the trend for the last 20 years is downwards. It makes no difference if you look at the Pacific. Using data from the JMA 1951-2022 we see typhoon activity trending downwards for over 7 decades.
1
@8fledermaus8 The ocean has warmed rapidly and repeatedly during the current interglacial with no correlation to CO2 e.g. 10,300-10,200 years before the present (y BP), 9,500y BP, 6,000-5,900y BP, 5,400-5,300y BP, 2,500-2,300y BP, 1,700-1,600y BP (Berner et al., 2008). There is a high frequency (18 events) of SST variability on the order of 1-3°C during a 10-50 year time resolution throughout the Holocene in the North Atlantic with no correlation to CO2
1
@8fledermaus8 But El Niño does explain the warming, and it is a natural event. ENSO (El Niño) shows no trend or pattern for this natural occurrence. I refer you to The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) – 1882 to Present. Overall the Earth appears to be warming at around 0.13°C/decade (UAHv6, NOAA-STARv5, radiosondes - 28 million weather balloons, and climate reanalyses concur on this). NOAA-STARv5 TLT may even appear to show a reduction in the rate of warming. 1981-2023: +0.129°C/decade, 1981-2001: +0.130°C/decade, 2002-2014: +0.008°C/decade, 2015-2023: -0.060°C/decade. This gets you less than 1°C warming by 2100. This year's immediate warming isn't even anything special or the hottest. Global Temperature anomaly for August, 2023 = +0.69°C. Global Temperature anomaly for April 1998 +0.62°C Global Temperature anomaly for February 2016 = +0.70°C. (UAH v6)
1
@8fledermaus8 Please, please look at some actual data. Go back to the sources.
1
@8fledermaus8 I talk about 1910-1940. You quote refers to 1910-1940. Look at the data. Look at the graphs. My conclusions are correct. My statement regarding the relationship between the variables is accurate. It's unbelievable. All the information, all the data and sources presented in these comments. None of which you can refute! Please develop some scepticism.
1
@SisterAbdullahX I know. They can go and look it up for themselves. No they'd rather listen to a self-promoting hyper-hypocrite like Gore.
1
@8fledermaus8 Excellent. Thank you for quoting from the "Summary for Policymakers" rather than the original report. It may help to understand how it is fabricated. 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 a political document not a scientific one.
1
 @8fledermaus8 No. The previous record anomalies were El Niño years. Global Temperature anomaly for April 1998 +0.62°C Global Temperature anomaly for February 2016 = +0.70°C. (UAH v6)
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