Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "BBC World Service"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HealingLifeKwikly
It's always the way: if you can't confront the data, say it's cherry picked.
There's at least a dozen data sources in my comment, with at least dozen starting points. Cherry picking. Yawn. Can't you think of something else?
And the Dustbowl hypothesis. Ludicrous. How do farming practices on 0.1% of the Earth’s surface (Midwest under cultivation) cause extreme warming over 30% of the Earth’s surface (Arctic north of 70°)? Really!
Describing the trend in sea ice since the early 1950s is not cherry picking.
Examining the entirety of HadCRUT4 Arctic to make a comparison of temperature anomalies and trends is not cherry picking.
Using KNMI data from 1851 onwards for Greenland is not cherry picking.
If you think recent cooling in Greenland and Canada is cherry picking, let's look at somewhere else: Svalbard.
Looking at the European Climate Assessment & Dataset for Longyearbyen, Svalbard, the mean of daily mean temperature graph (1958-2020) shows 1958 around -4°C. The temperature then declined rapidly and stayed lower around -6° or -7°C until the mid 1980's (Remember CO2 was rising all the time). By 2015 it rose to around -2.5°C and there it levelled off for the remaining 5 years of the record. So an overall change of +1.5°C in a little over 60 years. If this is the fastest warming on Earth we have nothing to worry about. But it does show how variable climate can be, and the temperature changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET Norway) has data for Barentsburg on Svalbard. The data ranges from 1912 to 1990. This data shows an extremely rapid warming in the 1910s, 1920s and into the 30s. There was around 8°C of warming in 20 years. That's far, far greater than the illusory warming being proselytised for the past twenty years.
The pattern of warming in this MET Norway data is uncorrelated to the changing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Early 20th century warming in the Arctic: A review" Takashi Yamanouchi, 2011.
Check out figure 7 and figure 10. No relationship to CO2.
Norwegian Meteorological Office (Seklima) shows something rather interesting for Svalbard's climate. 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. But statistically you can say that each year got hotter, eventhough it's just that fewer low temperatures are recorded, not more higher temperatures. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So there is no polar amplification. Temperatures have not risen at an unprecedented rate. The big problem for the doomists is peak interglacial warmth is not now but around 8,000 years ago. Proxies show a downward trend to the present day but with an interruption for the Medieval Warm Period (that doomists aren't allowed to believe in) followed by a decent into the The Little Ice Age (which doomists think also didn't exist), and a very slight recovery to the present day still below MWP though. Now I know that the response is to say about the supposed rapid warming over the last century but that's not a fair comparison. That's instrumental - which is itself unreliable (using annual instrumental measurements) - compared with proxy data whose the resolution is 200 years. If we smooth out the current data over the last two centuries you'd be lucky to see ½ degree per century. Your rapid warming disappears, and a very large number of bicentennial periods over the last 16,500 years warm at a faster rate (than 0.5°C/century).
I notice you didn't have anything to add to your Dustbowl farce. Nevermind, it was funny while it lasted.
1
-
@HealingLifeKwikly Describing the trend in sea ice since the early 1950s is not cherry picking.
Examining the entirety of HadCRUT4 Arctic to make a comparison of temperature anomalies and trends is not cherry picking.
Using KNMI data from 1851 onwards for Greenland is not cherry picking.
If you think recent cooling in Greenland and Canada is cherry picking, let's look at somewhere else: Svalbard.
Looking at the European Climate Assessment & Dataset for Longyearbyen, Svalbard, the mean of daily mean temperature graph (1958-2020) shows 1958 around -4°C. The temperature then declined rapidly and stayed lower around -6° or -7°C until the mid 1980's (Remember CO2 was rising all the time). By 2015 it rose to around -2.5°C and there it levelled off for the remaining 5 years of the record. So an overall change of +1.5°C in a little over 60 years. If this is the fastest warming on Earth we have nothing to worry about. But it does show how variable climate can be, and the temperature changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET Norway) has data for Barentsburg on Svalbard. The data ranges from 1912 to 1990. This data shows an extremely rapid warming in the 1910s, 1920s and into the 30s. There was around 8°C of warming in 20 years. That's far, far greater than the illusory warming being proselytised for the past twenty years.
The pattern of warming in this MET Norway data is uncorrelated to the changing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Early 20th century warming in the Arctic: A review" Takashi Yamanouchi, 2011.
Check out figure 7 and figure 10. No relationship to CO2.
Norwegian Meteorological Office (Seklima) shows something rather interesting for Svalbard's climate. 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. But statistically you can say that each year got hotter, eventhough it's just that fewer low temperatures are recorded, not more higher temperatures. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So there is no polar amplification. Temperatures have not risen at an unprecedented rate. The big problem for the doomists is peak interglacial warmth is not now but around 8,000 years ago. Proxies show a downward trend to the present day but with an interruption for the Medieval Warm Period (that doomists aren't allowed to believe in) followed by a decent into the The Little Ice Age (which doomists think also didn't exist), and a very slight recovery to the present day still below MWP though. Now I know that the response is to say about the supposed rapid warming over the last century but that's not a fair comparison. That's instrumental - which is itself unreliable (using annual instrumental measurements) - compared with proxy data whose the resolution is 200 years. If we smooth out the current data over the last two centuries you'd be lucky to see ½ degree per century. Your rapid warming disappears, and a very large number of bicentennial periods over the last 16,500 years warm at a faster rate (than 0.5°C/century).
I notice you didn't have anything to add to your Dustbowl farce. Nevermind, it was funny while it lasted.
1
-
1
-
@imtheeastgermanguy5431 No they don't. 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
-
1
-
@MariaMartinez-researcher It was warmer during the Medieval (Elbert, 2013, 2.9°C above present), Roman (Margaritelli, 2020), 2°C above present, also Wang et al, 2013, showing the change was at least hemispheric, and Minoan Warm Periods (Lécuyer, 2018, 4°C above present, links Mediterranean to Greenland Ice so at least hemispheric). It was certainly warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, so during our current interglacial. If you want a citation, try Quaternary Research Volume 53, Issue 3, May 2000, Pages 302-311. This makes the point that it was upto 7°C warmer on the shores of the Arctic during that time, with trees growing on the shores of the ocean (which would have been ice free in the summer - so don't worry about an ice-free Arctic), far to the north of the current treeline.
The big problem for you doomists is it shows peak interglacial warmth not now but around 8,000 years ago. It shows a downward trend to the present day but with an interruption for the Medieval Warm Period (that you doomists aren't allowed to believe in) followed by a decent into the The Little Ice Age (which you doomists think also didn't exist), and a very slight recovery to the present day still below MWP though. Now I know what you're going to say about the supposed rapid warming over the last century but that's not a fair comparison. That's instrumental with annual instrumental measurements compared with proxy data whose the resolution is 200 years. The latter cannot pick out sudden decadal increases (or decreases). If we smooth out the current instrumental data over the last two centuries you'd be lucky to see 0.5°C per century. Your rapid warming disappears, and a very large number of bicentennial periods over the last 16,500 years warm at a faster rate (than 0.5°C/century) in data sets like Osman et al (2021).
1
-
@MariaMartinez-researcher When it comes to fires 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 in 2023 was 3rd lowest on record. It was under 3 million acres well below the ten year average of 7 million and the lowest since 1998 (NIFC).
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 was nothing unusual about 2023 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.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bakedbean37
What do you know about glaciers?
The retreat of Himalayan glaciers began before the current warming and was caused by reduced precipitation (Shekhar, 2017. Singh, 2020.). This supported by further work done by Schneider (2014), and Chen (2019). The retreat was due to a reduction in precipitation. Currently, precipitation is half of what it was 20 years previously. Research by Salerno (2015) "challenges the assumption of the main driver [i.e. temperature] of glacier mass changes".
Satellite data shows the glaciers in the Karakoram largely unaffected by current warming. Of 1219 glaciers surveyed, 79.5% were stable, 5.3% were advancing, and 7.6% retreating (Rankl, 2014).
Swiss Alps glacier extents were smaller than 2000 C.E. during the warmer-than-today Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and throughout 75% of the Holocene, or when temperatures were 1-3°C warmer (Schimmelpfennig et al., 2022).
Glaciologists Bohleber et al, 2020 of the Austrian Academy of Science discovered from ice cores that the 3500-meter high Weißseespitze summit was ice free 5900 years ago.
There is “no evidence” that Jostedalsbreen, a southern Norway glacier, even existed during the first several thousand years of the Holocene, or when CO2 hovered near 260 ppm (Winker, 2021).
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. Glacial retreat is certainly not evidence of this.
1
-
1