Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "WFLA News Channel 8"
channel.
-
9
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
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 most recent rise stopped in August 2023, and has been declining since (NOAA SST v5 monthly).
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. And Life just carried on.
2
-
2
-
1
-
Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points - barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021).
This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.
1
-
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
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),
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,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
1
-
1
-
@hosnimubarak8869 The Party line is the number and length of heatwaves has increased globally (1950-2014) as you would expect in a slowly warming world, but there is no trend for average intensity (Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis, 2020, also ref. by IPCC). However, data that these heatwave assumptions are built upon are largely non-existent or fabricated. At least with the one data source GHCN it shows there is no reliable data going back to the 1950s across almost the whole of Indonesia, India, Arabia, Africa, plus Central and South America.
The other data source Berkeley Earth "observational" dataset - now that's a misrepresentation! - just makes it up. It's supposed to be high resolution (1° lat, 1° long) and go back to 1850. So I thought, hmm, the Horn of Africa and Arabia are looking a bit toasty and red on the maps. Let's check out the data. I found Berkeley Earth’s data sources. I reviewed WMO, GSOD, and NCAR. For the period reviewed in the paper (1950-2014) in the Horn of Africa there were no meteorological station that cover that period. That's right - zero. In the whole of Arabia there were three, just three.
Just like Arabia, the whole thing is built on sand.
Very interestingly, if you look at the charts on Fig. 1 on the paper, the US, especially the eastern half looks distinctly unaffected by any increase in heatwaves. Bit of a blue tinge there, I think you'll agree. It's much more difficult to fudge that one because of the huge number of long-term meteorological stations in the US. And why do they start in 1950, and not 1930 or 1900? Hmm.
1