Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "ITV News"
channel.
-
How about the truth?
The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p<0.05, or less than 5%) and no longer explainable by chance. Using National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) information for September minima (million km²):
2007 4.16
2008 4.59
2009 5.12
2010 4.62
2011 4.34
2012 3.39
2013 5.05
2014 5.03
2015 4.43
2016 4.17
2017 4.67
2018 4.66
2019 4.19
2020 3.82
2021 4.77
2022 4.67
2023 4.23.
Plot the trend line for this data and it will be flat. ZERO net change in 17 years. The linear trend since 2007 is indistinguishable from zero ( around -0.17% per year ).
In the early 1950s the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower than it is at present. The sea ice anomaly then rose during the 50s, 60s and 70s. This was followed by a decline. This is demonstrated in Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) data, which is based on historical sea ice charts from several sources (aircraft, ship, and satellite observations).
The AARI data shows the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower in 1952 (-5%) than 2005 (-3%). The anomaly increased in the 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 80s, 90s and early 2000s it decreased. Since 2007 the trend has been flat.
JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency) satellite data from 2002 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. No other year since has come close.
MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent - Northern Hemisphere) shows something similar to JAXA. From 2005 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. Again no other year since has come close. It also shows a marked increase in Ice in the Greenland Sea since 2018.
Polyakov et al (2003) show "ice extent (1900-2000) in the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas provide evidence that long-term ice thickness and extent trends are small and generally not statistically significant". Trend -0.5% per decade (±0.7%).
Zhang (2021) shows there is no trend for Arctic sea ice volume since at least 2010, and observes that ice draft increased from 1995 onwards.
Vinje (2001) shows a deceleration in the rate of ice loss from 1864 to 2000.
Recent sea ice extent is very high when compared to the last 10,000 years. Also changes in sea ice extent and the speed of those changes were greater in the past (Stein et al, 2017).
NOAA's Global Time Series Average Temperature Anomaly monthly data (1995-2004) for the Arctic region shows the peak anomaly occurred in January 2016 (+4.99°C), another El Niño year, and the trend is now downwards (-0.42°C per decade) as of June 2024.
HadCRUT4 Arctic (70N - 90N) monthly surface air temperature anomalies record (1920-2021) shows the greatest number and magnitude of positive temperature anomalies occurred between 1930-49. All anomalies in excess of 5°C, including +7°C (referenced to 1961-1990) are from that period. No temperature anomalies from 2000-2019 exceeded 5°C. It shows no decade warmed faster than the 1930s and the current 'warming' finished in 2005.
JRA55 SAT (2010-2020) shows most of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland cooling with parts of Canada cooling by 3°C and western Greenland cooling by 2.5°C in a decade.
KNMI data (Twentieth Century Reanalysis V2c, 1851-2011, 68°N-80°N, 25°W-60°W, so Greenland) shows the most pronounced warming took place in the 1870s, and when comparing temperature anomalies, highest are in the 1930s and comparison of that period with recent temperature anomalies shows no net warming.
10
-
7
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
The Royal Society recommend the UK should have 100TWh of energy storage by 2050 (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. A typical pumped storage facility has a 300 to 400m dam built to hold back 10 million cubic metres of water, with a fall to the turbines below of about 400 metres.
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.
The cabling and additional structures to connect all this together will essentially require the UK consuming huge amounts of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years.
1.5 billion tonnes of concrete
42 million tonnes of steel (which is going to need 27 million tonnes of coking coal)
1.9 million tonnes of copper
1.3 million tonnes of zinc
184,000 tonnes of manganese
122,000 tonnes of chromium
56,000 tonnes of nickel
54,000 tonnes of other critical minerals.
No doubt all of these materials will be ethically sourced using low carbon processes.
Nuclear power would require less than ½ of these resources and Coal power around ¹/10th.
The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the less than 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the whole Earth going Net Zero. Good luck with that.
4
-
3
-
3
-
This video obscures the truth. Go back to the source, the Norwegian Meteorological Office (Seklima), to try to get to the bottom of this. I suggest everyone check out their data.
Ny-ålesund data for maximum annual temperatures shows no trend since records began in 1969. It has not got hotter. However, the minimum annual temperatures has increased, so the winters have become milder (but still extremely cold). The increase in the annual minimum temperature occurred over 20 years, but this trend stopped around 2006.
To find a longer term view on Svalbard you need to look up other weather stations, for example Longyearbyen + Svalbard Lufthavn. Looking at say 1950 to the present shows no trend in the maximum temperatures. The minima dropped quite considerably from the later 50s. The 60s and 70s had an intensely cold trend of minima. It then warmed in the 80s/90s and from 2005 levelled off. So overall the swings in temperature on Svalbard during the year have become less extreme. Very roughly, it hasn't got hotter, but the winters, which got very much colder, became less cold, now they have stopped getting less cold since about 2005. Svalbard's climate became milder, less extreme than compared to the 60s and 70s, but not hotter. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p<0.05, or less than 5%) and no longer explainable by chance. Using National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) information for September minima (million km²):
2007 4.16
2008 4.59
2009 5.12
2010 4.62
2011 4.34
2012 3.39
2013 5.05
2014 5.03
2015 4.43
2016 4.17
2017 4.67
2018 4.66
2019 4.19
2020 3.82
2021 4.77
2022 4.67
2023 4.23.
Plot the trend line for this data and it will be flat. ZERO net change in 17 years. The linear trend since 2007 is indistinguishable from zero ( around -0.17% per year ).
In the early 1950s the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower than it is at present. The sea ice anomaly then rose during the 50s, 60s and 70s. This was followed by a decline. This is demonstrated in Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) data, which is based on historical sea ice charts from several sources (aircraft, ship, and satellite observations).
The AARI data shows the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower in 1952 (-5%) than 2005 (-3%). The anomaly increased in the 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 80s, 90s and early 2000s it decreased. Since 2007 the trend has been flat.
JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency) satellite data from 2002 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. No other year since has come close.
MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent - Northern Hemisphere) shows something similar to JAXA. From 2005 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. Again no other year since has come close. It also shows a marked increase in Ice in the Greenland Sea since 2018.
Polyakov et al (2003) show "ice extent (1900-2000) in the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas provide evidence that long-term ice thickness and extent trends are small and generally not statistically significant". Trend -0.5% per decade (±0.7%).
Zhang (2021) shows there is no trend for Arctic sea ice volume since at least 2010, and observes that ice draft increased from 1995 onwards.
Vinje (2001) shows a deceleration in the rate of ice loss from 1864 to 2000.
Recent sea ice extent is very high when compared to the last 10,000 years. Also changes in sea ice extent and the speed of those changes were greater in the past (Stein et al, 2017).
NOAA's Global Time Series Average Temperature Anomaly monthly data (1995-2004) for the Arctic region shows the peak anomaly occurred in January 2016 (+4.99°C), another El Niño year, and the trend is now downwards (-0.42°C per decade) as of June 2024.
HadCRUT4 Arctic (70N - 90N) monthly surface air temperature anomalies record (1920-2021) shows the greatest number and magnitude of positive temperature anomalies occurred between 1930-49. All anomalies in excess of 5°C, including +7°C (referenced to 1961-1990) are from that period. No temperature anomalies from 2000-2019 exceeded 5°C. It shows no decade warmed faster than the 1930s and the current 'warming' finished in 2005.
JRA55 SAT (2010-2020) shows most of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland cooling with parts of Canada cooling by 3°C and western Greenland cooling by 2.5°C in a decade.
KNMI data (Twentieth Century Reanalysis V2c, 1851-2011, 68°N-80°N, 25°W-60°W, so Greenland) shows the most pronounced warming took place in the 1870s, and when comparing temperature anomalies, highest are in the 1930s and comparison of that period with recent temperature anomalies shows no net warming.
1
-
The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p<0.05, or less than 5%) and no longer explainable by chance. Using National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) information for September minima (million km²):
2007 4.16
2008 4.59
2009 5.12
2010 4.62
2011 4.34
2012 3.39
2013 5.05
2014 5.03
2015 4.43
2016 4.17
2017 4.67
2018 4.66
2019 4.19
2020 3.82
2021 4.77
2022 4.67
2023 4.23.
Plot the trend line for this data and it will be flat. ZERO net change in 17 years. The linear trend since 2007 is indistinguishable from zero ( around -0.17% per year ).
In the early 1950s the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower than it is at present. The sea ice anomaly then rose during the 50s, 60s and 70s. This was followed by a decline. This is demonstrated in Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) data, which is based on historical sea ice charts from several sources (aircraft, ship, and satellite observations).
The AARI data shows the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower in 1952 (-5%) than 2005 (-3%). The anomaly increased in the 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 80s, 90s and early 2000s it decreased. Since 2007 the trend has been flat.
JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency) satellite data from 2002 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. No other year since has come close.
MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent - Northern Hemisphere) shows something similar to JAXA. From 2005 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. Again no other year since has come close. It also shows a marked increase in Ice in the Greenland Sea since 2018.
Polyakov et al (2003) show "ice extent (1900-2000) in the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas provide evidence that long-term ice thickness and extent trends are small and generally not statistically significant". Trend -0.5% per decade (±0.7%).
Zhang (2021) shows there is no trend for Arctic sea ice volume since at least 2010, and observes that ice draft increased from 1995 onwards.
Vinje (2001) shows a deceleration in the rate of ice loss from 1864 to 2000.
Recent sea ice extent is very high when compared to the last 10,000 years. Also changes in sea ice extent and the speed of those changes were greater in the past (Stein et al, 2017).
NOAA's Global Time Series Average Temperature Anomaly monthly data (1995-2004) for the Arctic region shows the peak anomaly occurred in January 2016 (+4.99°C), another El Niño year, and the trend is now downwards (-0.42°C per decade) as of June 2024.
HadCRUT4 Arctic (70N - 90N) monthly surface air temperature anomalies record (1920-2021) shows the greatest number and magnitude of positive temperature anomalies occurred between 1930-49. All anomalies in excess of 5°C, including +7°C (referenced to 1961-1990) are from that period. No temperature anomalies from 2000-2019 exceeded 5°C. It shows no decade warmed faster than the 1930s and the current 'warming' finished in 2005.
JRA55 SAT (2010-2020) shows most of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland cooling with parts of Canada cooling by 3°C and western Greenland cooling by 2.5°C in a decade.
KNMI data (Twentieth Century Reanalysis V2c, 1851-2011, 68°N-80°N, 25°W-60°W, so Greenland) shows the most pronounced warming took place in the 1870s, and when comparing temperature anomalies, highest are in the 1930s and comparison of that period with recent temperature anomalies shows no net warming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeromejerome2492 They are not my measurements, they are "the work of numerous specialists" the data is from NSIDC, AARI, JAXA, MASIE, NOAA, HadCRUT4, JRA55, KNMI, plus Polyarkov, Vinje, Zhang and all their associated researchers. The data is as I described. It does not show cataclysmic warming of the Arctic, and your assertion to the contrary is worthless.
1
-
@anabolicamaranth7140 Have you read what I've written?
There are numerous starting points: 2010, 2007, 2005, 2002, 1995, 1950, 1920, 1900, 1864, 1851 and 8,000BC. That's the point. It doesn't matter when you start there is no cataclysmic warming taking place in the Arctic.
1
-
@jeromejerome2492 They are not my measurements, they are "the work of numerous specialists" the data is from NSIDC, AARI, JAXA, MASIE, NOAA, HadCRUT4, JRA55, KNMI, plus Polyarkov, Vinje, Zhang and all their associated researchers. The data is as I described. It does not show cataclysmic warming of the Arctic, and your assertion to the contrary is without evidence.
1
-
1
-
@jeromejerome2492 They are not my measurements, they are "the work of numerous specialists" the data is from NSIDC, AARI, JAXA, MASIE, NOAA, HadCRUT4, JRA55, KNMI, plus Polyarkov, Vinje, Zhang and all their associated researchers. The data is as I described. It does not show cataclysmic warming of the Arctic.
1
-
@jeromejerome2492 They are not my measurements, they are "the work of numerous specialists" the data is from NSIDC, AARI, JAXA, MASIE, NOAA, HadCRUT4, JRA55, KNMI, plus Polyarkov, Vinje, Zhang and all their associated researchers.
1
-
@anabolicamaranth7140 The video itself is cherry picking as I have demonstrated with my more expansive data.
This video obscures the truth. Go back to the source, the Norwegian Meteorological Office (Selima), to try to get to the bottom of this. I suggest everyone check out their data.
Ny-ålesund data for maximum annual temperatures shows no trend since records began in 1969. It has not got hotter. However, the minimum annual temperatures has increased, so the winters have become milder (but still extremely cold). The increase in the annual minimum temperature occurred over 20 years, but this trend stopped around 2006.
To find a longer term view on Svalbard you need to look up other weather stations, for example Longyearbyen + Svalbard Lufthavn. Looking at say 1950 to the present shows no trend in the maximum temperatures. The minima dropped quite considerably from the later 50s. The 60s and 70s had an intensely cold trend of minima. It then warmed in the 80s/90s and from 2005 levelled off. So overall the swings in temperature on Svalbard during the year have become less extreme. Very roughly, it hasn't got hotter, but the winters, which got very much colder, became less cold, now they have stopped getting less cold since about 2005. Svalbard's climate became milder, less extreme than compared to the 60s and 70s, but not hotter. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1
-
@Mike-zx1kx This video obscures the truth. Go back to the source, the Norwegian Meteorological Office (Selima), to try to get to the bottom of this. I suggest everyone check out their data.
Ny-ålesund data for maximum annual temperatures shows no trend since records began in 1969. It has not got hotter. However, the minimum annual temperatures has increased, so the winters have become milder (but still extremely cold). The increase in the annual minimum temperature occurred over 20 years, but this trend stopped around 2006.
To find a longer term view on Svalbard you need to look up other weather stations, for example Longyearbyen + Svalbard Lufthavn. Looking at say 1950 to the present shows no trend in the maximum temperatures. The minima dropped quite considerably from the later 50s. The 60s and 70s had an intensely cold trend of minima. It then warmed in the 80s/90s and from 2005 levelled off. So overall the swings in temperature on Svalbard during the year have become less extreme. Very roughly, it hasn't got hotter, but the winters, which got very much colder, became less cold, now they have stopped getting less cold since about 2005. Svalbard's climate became milder, less extreme than compared to the 60s and 70s, but not hotter. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mike-zx1kx A more balanced review of the data cannot support the assertion that there has been a major global loss of coral in the recent past, and nor can this loss be projected into the future.
Any claims made prior to 2000 need to be treated with caution due to the huge margins of uncertainty in the data. There is also a refusal to focus on any positive points to maintain a sense of balance. For example, although GCRMN claimed a 14% coral loss between 2008 and 2019, it failed to mention that there was an apparent increase of a similar amount between 2000 and 2008. This seems disingenuous.
Taking a look at regional data, the different areas show no relationship to each other or to a changing climate, or to the the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Returning to whole world data still does not validate the idea that there has been a major drop in coral cover. There may have been a diminution of 7% from 2000–19, but this must be treated with some caution because the stated error margin is of similar size to the difference. Also one should consider natural variability at around 10% – higher than the difference between 2000 and 2019.
I just went back and had a look at some GCRMN data by region, looking for a signal for bleaching. I noticed East Asia (the most important region for coral at 30.1% of global coral) was unaffected. In fact, coverage increased. So not global bleaching. Then I looked at AIMS' GBR LTMP data, which is more valuable than GCRMN, because of its longer time frame and more consistent methodology. Normalised coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef remained little changed around 1998, staying near 0.20 for a few years either side. AIMS stated in reference to the 1998 bleaching ‘most reefs recovered fully'. So not a global bleaching. For reference the 2022 figure for coverage on GBR is 0.34. That's quite a rise. Looking at their graph it's shot up since 2011 (despite four 'bleaching' events). In fact the last 3 years are record cover.
1
-
@Mike-zx1kx A more balanced review of the data cannot support the assertion that there has been a major global loss of coral in the recent past, and nor can this loss be projected into the future.
Any claims made prior to 2000 need to be treated with caution due to the huge margins of uncertainty in the data. There is also a refusal to focus on any positive points to maintain a sense of balance. For example, although GCRMN claimed a 14% coral loss between 2008 and 2019, it failed to mention that there was an apparent increase of a similar amount between 2000 and 2008. This seems disingenuous.
Taking a look at regional data, the different areas show no relationship to each other or to a changing climate, or to the the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Returning to whole world data still does not validate the idea that there has been a major drop in coral cover. There may have been a diminution of 7% from 2000–19, but this must be treated with some caution because the stated error margin is of similar size to the difference. Also one should consider natural variability at around 10% – higher than the difference between 2000 and 2019.
I just went back and had a look at some GCRMN data by region, looking for a signal for bleaching. I noticed East Asia (the most important region for coral at 30.1% of global coral) was unaffected. In fact, coverage increased. So not global bleaching. Then I looked at AIMS' GBR LTMP data, which is more valuable than GCRMN, because of its longer time frame and more consistent methodology. Normalised coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef remained little changed around 1998, staying near 0.20 for a few years either side. AIMS stated in reference to the 1998 bleaching ‘most reefs recovered fully'. So not a global bleaching. For reference the 2022 figure for coverage on GBR is 0.34. That's quite a rise. Looking at their graph it's shot up since 2011 (despite four 'bleaching' events). In fact the last 3 years are record cover.
1
-
@Mike-zx1kx Does "a few" mean less than 40 to you? The AIMS Long-term Monitoring Programme (LTMP) data for the GBR (Great Barrier Reef) started in 1985.
At the start of the data sequence for the whole GBR cover was 25% in 1986. It reached a low point in 2011 of 12%. In 2022, the LTMP found record high coral cover on the GBR of 34% coral cover on the seabed of the coral reefs monitored. Northern region reached a low point in 2016. However, it has since completely recovered, with coral cover now at double the 2016 level, and recording record cover.
The Central region has experienced a greater degree of fluctuation, but is also now at record high coral cover.
The Southern region is now at record equalling coral cover, three times higher than at its low point in 2011.
Every region is at record-equalling high coral cover, once uncertainty estimates are taken into account.
The reef always recovers strongly. And it's got nothing to do with CO2.
Increases in bleaching events has not prevented rapid and record increases in coral cover. AIMS states "Percent hard coral cover is one standard measure of reef condition recorded by scientists worldwide, it provides a simple and robust measure of reef health" with that in mind, and it being such a robust measure, let's just say it loud and clear: hard coral cover is at record-equalling levels in all three sectors of the GBR.
Crown of Thorns Starfish are also a non-problem. Northern: no starfish or no outbreak on all reefs. Central: no starfish or no outbreaks. Southern: out of 30 reefs, 27 had no starfish or no outbreaks.
And once more, oh yes, there is record hard coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef. And that is a robust measure of reef health. What a robust reef!
1
-
@Mike-zx1kx Who do you think you are? Vishnu? I'm not deflecting from the core issue. The core issue is that there is no objective data that we are in a global climate crisis.
The video was about the Arctic, so I present data that shows summer ice extent has stopped decreasing and maximum temperatures have stopped increasing, and they are unrelated to CO2, so you deflect and start wittering on about coral reefs so i quote data that shows when it comes to coral, again its variation is unrelated to CO2.
Like I say, 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.
The reality is of course people are living longer healthier wealthier lives, food production is at record levels, and the Earth is greening. This is the best time to be alive in human history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1