Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. Join the Quasi-Marxist Slow Mass Death Carbon-Cult Party. Be baptised into the Church of Climatology. The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
    1
  2. Mostly dangerous drivel. 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. The IPCC reports in AR6, chapter 11, "The total global frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence)." 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. What the data from NOAA SPC shows about tornados: EF1-EF5 (1954-2022) no trend; EF3-EF5 (most destructive) (1954-2022) 50% decline. No EF5s in US since 2013 (a record absence). The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades. Drought appears to be decreasing (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017. Deaths from natural disasters are about 0.6% of what they were a century ago. What else? Oh, deserts like the Sahara have shrunk considerably and the Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime (NASA). On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years. At that frequency it will take nearly 190,000 years to reach 15% extinction i.e. a mass extinction. There is no climate crisis. This video is anti-humanist.
    1
  3. There is no possible way they can say what the global temperature was in 1941. There will be huge parts of the globe where no measurements will have been taken until the advent of satellite technology towatds the end of the 70s. During the latter half of the nineteenth century reliable records are only really available from parts of Europe, USA and eastern Australia, with a very small number of reliable stations outside of that. Even before 1950 there are essentially no GHCN-Daily stations in South America, India, S. E. Asia, China, Africa, or around the Poles. The graph is a fabrication.
    1
  4. 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! 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
  5. This is nonsense. It was hotter in the recent and distant past. There is no satellite data before 1979, and there was no real network of temperature stations outside Europe and America before the 1950s, so "hottest ever" is not very long! It was much hotter in America in the 1930s, and the Vikings grew barley on Greenland, which is impossible today. This is bull meant to scare people into giving up their prosperity. Satellite data shows the Earth is continuing to warm at around one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade. If we didn't have thermometers we couldn't even notice it.
    1
  6.  @AegonCallery-ty6vy  😁
    1
  7.  @MyKharli  Senile is from the Latin 'senex' meaning 'old man', so including senile would be rather repetitious. But many thanks for the pleasant suggestion.
    1
  8. @mattbrownartwork  What exactly am I denying? I have stated scientific facts and observations supported by objective data. Describing these as misinformation is itself a form of misinformation. Is it that the Science presented doesn't fit your subjective narrative? But you have nothing to combat the truth so you try to stifle reasoned expression and discourse. There have been people and groups like you throughout history. It never ended well when attitudes like yours were adhered to. If I'm wrong then prove it. Muster your intellect, facts and arguments. Then defeat mine in open debate. Who knows, we may learn something from one another and discover a compromise.
    1
  9.  @Jc-ms5vv  And you should stop calling yourself JC. It's a little blasphemous, don't you think? 😉
    1
  10. @chrismckellar9350  You can beg as much as you like. It won't make any difference to the facts. 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. With Methane (CH4), it is only 0.00019% (1.9 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Both of its narrow absorption bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing substantially. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O. With the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere being between 1,000 and 20,000 times greater than CH4, the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O.
    1
  11. ​@paulnewman2000 Sea level appears to be rising at a small and steady 3mm per year. It is neither acclerating nor decelerating. The trend is linear. 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.
    1
  12.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  Will it make any difference if I do?
    1
  13.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  I have. What have you found?
    1
  14.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  So will it?
    1
  15.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  I'm not sure if I can "go back" on a question? The language seems a little puerile as well.
    1
  16.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  My apologies for appearing discombobulated. And I'll assume you don't know what HadSST is.
    1
  17.  @YouTubemessedupmyhandle  Boyin Huang, Viva F. Banzon, Eric Freeman, Jay Lawrimore, Wei Liu, Thomas C. Peterson, Thomas M. Smith, Peter W. Thorne, Scott D. Woodruff, and Huai-Min Zhang, 2015: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), Version 4.
    1
  18.  @AndTecks  You're so erudite. Pray tell me more.
    1
  19. @Jc-ms5vv  The Petm only resulted in a noticeable extinction of some benthic foraminifera. That was so small an event it doesn't even show up on a marine extinction intensity chart for the Phanerozoic. There was, in fact, a more general flourishing of life at that point, especially terrestrial. We've got that to look forward to. The next largest extinction event, since the dinosaurs bit the big one, is the Eocene-Oligocene transition (Grande Coupure). This seems to have been connected with cooling, not warming. Oh dear.
    1
  20. Total nonsense. Sea level appears to be rising at a small and steady 3mm per year. It is neither acclerating or decelerating. The trend is linear. 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. 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
  21. There is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past. It also warmed faster in the past. Net zero in the UK will have essentially zero effect on the climate. It will, however, lead to a fall in our standard of living and impoverishment. Poverty shortens people's lives. This is anti-human.
    1
  22. @Strangemagic  Carbon dioxide I think we can agree is a greenhouse gas. However, its addition to the atmosphere has the effect on the Earth's energy budget of a few Watts per metre squared. This is marginal and less than the error range for the estimation of the effect for the main greenhouse gas - water vapour. It is also logarithmic in its action, and the more we add, the less effect it has. As regards World population, the use of fossil fuels has increased the efficiency of farming in a variety of ways. Also, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has a fertilising effect, causing the Earth to green dramatically over the past few decades and helping make plants drought tolerant and increase yields. These factors have resulted in wondrous human flourishing. You are less likely to starve now than at any time in human history.
    1
  23. Channel 4 propaganda. Don't look at the Arctic! Look at the Antarctic! The Greenland surface mass balance (SMB) increase for the year 2022-23 was a massive - and well above 1981-2010 average - 450 billion tonnes of ice accumulated. 5 out of the last 7 years have seen huge accumulations above the average (1981-2010). Greenland has been cooling since 2012. No, no. We're not reporting that. That would give the story balance.
    1
  24. 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
  25.  @NewPipeFTW  No. UAH v6.
    1
  26. @AndTecks  Your understanding of science appears to be limited. The scientific method can only disprove.
    1
  27. @AndTecks  The sources are included in the original comment: USCRN (US Climate Reference Network), and UAHv6 University Alabama Huntsville satellite data version 6). Further to that, there is no "global" warming. The northerly latitudes are warming, but the southerly latitudes are cooling with little change in trend around the Equator (NOAA-STARv5 TLT & TMT 1979-2023). 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 globally. 1981-2023: +0.129°C/decade, 1981-2001: +0.130°C/decade, 2002-2014: +0.008°C/decade, 2015-2023: -0.060°C/decade, so when you look at actual instrumental records the warming is uneven both spatially and temporally.
    1
  28. Another climate propaganda video. Remember the reporting in June about how warm the ocean was around Britain? Well, now the oceans around Britain and the whole of the western Mediterranean have cooled rapidly during the last week (-10°C). This won't be reported, though.
    1
  29.  @AA-vi1cc  You are so right! But 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. 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. 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
  30.  @AA-vi1cc  Interesting point about Tonga. I found the paper. I have hunch there's more to this, but a hunch isn't very scientific on my part. 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 the period of satellite measurements). 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 (and no doubt you'll be your usual delightful self and concur), but doesn't that mean that without the increase in TSI, the EEI would be in negative territory?
    1
  31. 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.
    1
  32. @jerrypartington3650  Many scientists...think...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.
    1
  33. @RebeccaTurner-ny1xx  What would you and your daft flag wavers consider convincing data?
    1
  34. It is a flood plain. It will flood.
    1
  35. The 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
  36. So what? More fake predictions by scientists: 1958 the Arctic Ocean will be Ice free in one generation. 1967 there will be global famine. 1970 there will be an ice age in the 21st century. 1971 50 years away from an ice age. 1972 glacial temperatures within a century. 1974 satellites show ice age coming fast. 1978 no end to cooling trend. 1979 ice at North Pole will melt in one lifetime. 1982 environmental catastrophe by 2000. 1988 Maldives underwater in 30 years. 1989 entire nations underwater by 2000. 2000 snowfall has become a thing of the past. 2004 UK climate will become Siberian. Cities will sink into the ocean. 2006 10 years until a point of no return. 2007 if no action 2012 will be too late. Also 2007 Arctic ice free 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or 5 years take your pick. 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 snow will be gone by 2020. 2013 Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. Also 2018 humans to go extinct by 2023 from climate change. 2022 End of Snow predicted.
    1
  37.  @emm_arr  That's not the same as a climate crisis.
    1
  38. 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
  39. The ocean has warmed (and cooled) 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
  40. 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
  41. This is nonsense. It was hotter in the recent and distant past. There is no satellite data before 1979, and there was no real network of temperature stations outside Europe and America before the 1950s, so "hottest ever" is not very long! It was much hotter in America in the 1930s, and the Vikings grew barley on Greenland, which is impossible today. This is bull meant to scare people into giving up their prosperity. Satellite data shows the Earth is continuing to warm at around one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade. If we didn't have thermometers we couldn't even notice it.
    1
  42. @hmgrraarrpffrzz9763  They are not assumptions but statements of verifiable fact based on objective data. For example, Heatwaves in US were more than 6 times worse than recent events with greater frequency and covering a larger area (Kunkel, 2022, EPA). Look it up for yourself. The same goes for satellite data, try UAH v6. Your argument is from 'authority'. Don't be hoodwinked. Look at the data. Things are far more complicated and nuanced. There is no global climate crisis.
    1
  43.  @Tasp-u7j  A poll of scientists (meteorologists, physicists, geologists, hydrologists, and climatologists) completed in October 2022 found 59% thought climate change will cause "significant harm", but 39% said either “significant improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” That's not a consensus, and that's not "nearly all".
    1
  44. @hmgrraarrpffrzz9763  The survey was conducted by the Fairleigh Dickinson University.
    1
  45. @acajoom  Again your focusing on me. It won't help your or my understanding of the situation. You need to focus on the objective data that has been collected. Is there, for example, anything wrong with the research I referred to in my original comment?
    1
  46. @estherzerubb  I trust that you may have found that to be the case. I have seen the reports on the news of fires and floods. I hope that you and yours were not harmed by these natural events. Nevertheless, anecdotal testimony regarding a seasons weather, however unusual, is not representative of how a climate is changing over many decades or centuries, and is not evidence that extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a danger to humanity and the planet.
    1
  47. @ljt3084  "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.
    1
  48. This is nonsense. It was hotter in the recent and distant past. There is no satellite data before 1979, and there was no real network of temperature stations outside Europe and America before the 1950s, so "hottest ever" is not very long! It was much hotter in America in the 1930s, and the Vikings grew barley on Greenland, which is impossible today. This is bull meant to scare people into giving up their prosperity. Satellite data shows the Earth is continuing to warm at around one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade. If we didn't have thermometers we couldn't even notice it.
    1
  49. These are weather events, not climate.
    1
  50.  @prophetsnake  So what is the truth?
    1