• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Global cooling, were all doomed put up the price of fuel, more clean air zones
and conferences we can jet round the world to.
:) :omr:
 

Study Finds Zero Loss of Antarctica Sea Ice – But BBC Spins as “New Record Low”


The BBC recently copied a headline from the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) claiming Antarctica sea ice had hit a “new record low”.

Inexplicably missing from the story was the later observation from the NSIDC that since accurate satellite records began in 1979, the trend in the minimum ice extent is “near zero”. Any loss was said to be “not statistically significant”.

According to a recent paper (Singh and Polvani), the Antarctica sea ice has “modestly expanded”, and warming has been “nearly non-existent” over much of the ice sheet. According to NASA figures, the ice loss is 0.0005% per year.

In 2021 [the South Pole] recorded its coldest six-month winter since records began, and last year the temperature was 0.4°C colder than the average over the last 30 years. In addition, the Pole recorded no less than seven new daily temperature lows.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/21...tica-sea-ice-but-bbc-spins-as-new-record-low/

maximus otter
This article from EOS science magazine claims that, since 1979, the Antarctic has actually been gaining ice:

https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice
 
A few more articles on ice loss in Antarctica.

Antarctica’s most vulnerable climate hot spot is a remote and hostile place — a narrow sliver of seawater, beneath a slab of floating ice more than half a kilometer thick. Scientists have finally explored it, and uncovered something surprising.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/melting-eroding-thwaites-glacier


There is now less sea-ice surrounding the Antarctic continent than at any time since we began using satellites to measure it in the late 1970s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64649596


New footage has revealed Antarctica's Thwaites Glacier is shrinking from below in a way scientists hadn't expected – with melting happening rapidly along the cracks and crevasses in its base.
https://www.sciencealert.com/hypnot...rapidly-melting-cracks-below-doomsday-glacier


 
Wouldn't ice melting create more sea ice as the ice fell away from the land? So there may be less sea ice but a greater volume of ice on the continent itself?
 
Yeah, at first the extent of sea-ice increases, because the ice shelf splits into smaller masses and moves outwards. The solid ice shelf becomes an equally impassable maze of icebergs.
1024px-Glacier-ice_shelf_interactions.svg.png

Note that it is not until the last stage that sea levels begin to rise; we are not at that stage yet.
 
than at any time since we began using satellites to measure it in the late 1970s.
It's that "since records began" thing again.
Not a huge data-set when only using figures since the 1970s.
Shame there weren't satellites measuring it back in the Last Glacial Period (LGP), from the end of the Eemian to the end of the Younger Dryas, encompassing the period c. 115,000 – c. 11,700 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period
 
"This study has carefully analysed official data and assessments by hurricane scientists, and finds:

• 2021 and 2022 recorded the lowest number of both hurricanes and major hurricanes globally for any two year period since 1980.

• The apparent long-term increase in the number of hurricanes since the 19th century has been due to changes in observational practices over the years, rather than a real increase.

• Data show no long-term trends in US landfalling hurricanes since the mid-19th century, when systematic records began, either in terms of frequency or intensity.

• Similarly, after allowing for the fact that many hurricanes were not spotted prior to the satellite era, there are no such trends in Atlantic hurricanes either.

• Globally there are also no trends in hurricanes since reliable records began in the 1970s.

• Evidence is also presented that wind speeds of the most powerful hurricanes may now be overestimated..."

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/02/Homewood-Hurricanes-2022-1.pdf?mc_cid=4577f9d94c

maximus otter
 
So much of the gloom and doom we see on a daily basis is I
think due to better communications, if a elephant breaks wind
in Bombay it's somewhere on the net in minutes,
my mk1 nose and eyes tell me a lot of it is due to us being able
to look at the world through the internet window.
 
This need a little careful study, but seems to hold water (as it were). It examines the nature of warming in relation to theoretical effective emission height, i.e. the average height at which the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is being emitted and shows how this is linked to warming in general and C02 concentrations or (as it happens) not.

The test that exonerates CO2​

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/24/the-test-that-exonerates-co2/

“decadal changes of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) as measured by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System from 2000 to 2018, the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment from 1985 to 1998, and the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder from 1985 to 2018 are analyzed. The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature.
 
Indeed. Funny how this 'top climate scientist' isn't named.
I mean, if I had (eg) discovered a way to make electricity out of thin air I would want my name associated with it.
Like Dr Rhys Grinter, PhD student Ashleigh Kropp, and Professor Chris Greening from the Monash University Biomedicine Discovery Institute in Melbourne, Australia.
https://www.monash.edu/news/article... battery,alternative to solar-powered devices.
 
Greta Thunberg deletes 2018 tweet saying world will end in 2023 after world does not end
"A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." Thunberg's post read from 2018.
https://thepostmillennial.com/greta...rld-will-end-in-2023-after-world-does-not-end
View attachment 64237
That quote from Greta doesnt say what those other two think it does. It's basically saying that climate change will reach an irreversible tipping point within 5 years, not that after 5 years we have some The Day After Tomorrow style insta-death on the countdown clock.

The posting of the article here leaves out that even the article itself points that out.

2023_03_12_11_00_14_Greta_Thunberg_deletes_2018_tweet_saying_world_will_end_in_2023_after_worl...jpg
 
Indeed. Funny how this 'top climate scientist' isn't named.
They are indeed named. Second sentence of the page Greta linked actually, the scientist is James Anderson.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180501150731/https://gritpost.com/humans-extinct-climate-change/

"A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.

In a recent speech at the University of Chicago, James Anderson — a professor of atmospheric chemistry at Harvard University — warned that climate change is drastically pushing Earth back to the Eocene Epoch from 33 million BCE, when there was no ice on either pole. Anderson says current pollution levels have already catastrophically depleted atmospheric ozone levels, which absorb 98 percent of ultraviolet rays, to levels not seen in 12 million years."
 
Oh I see - I tried to find the Gritpost article but I kept getting a '404 page not found' thing.
But he isn't mentioned in the twitter post itself though.
 
That report also warns that permanent arctic sea ice would be gone by now.
It isn't.
 
That report also warns that permanent arctic sea ice would be gone by now.
It isn't.
as Zach Elwood posted in the article you linked, "you can disagree with her and see that's not what she's saying".

The idea that Greta (or someone else like the scientist) must be correct 100% of the time and if not then all their arguments are invalid, is bad logic.
 
That report also warns that permanent arctic sea ice would be gone by now.
It isn't.

Putting a date on things like that is always foolish, though the scientists reporting are probably under pressure to do give specific dates or time frames. Nature and natural processes do not work to a schedule or timeframe convenient to humans. There's an overall downward trend the speed of the summer melt is increasing and the winter recovery is slowing and decreasing, there might be a slight upward trend occasionally but we are moving towards an ice free Arctic, my guess is sooner rather than later - ice melt is an exponential process.

When the Arctic is ice free people will do doubt find ways to say it isn't or that just you wait, it'll be back next year! Or: we don't need the ice anyway, or there was never any ice there or there is loads of ice there but Bill Gates/The Illuminati/Satan/"They" are covering it up with holograms or something.
 
Both graphs are from the same source but he doesn’t say who he’s talking about when he says ‘as presented by the media’ Which media? Where?

I’ll just add that wattsupwiththat is a blog run by a radio weathercaster & non-scientist.

He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.

He also appers to be on the payroll of the Heartland Institute.
 
Both graphs are from the same source but he doesn’t say who he’s talking about when he says ‘as presented by the media’ Which media? Where?

I’ll just add that wattsupwiththat is a blog run by a radio weathercaster & non-scientist.



He also appers to be on the payroll of the Heartland Institute.
The most often cited global temperature anomaly graph is from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), showing yearly average temperatures since 1880, as seen in Figure 1 below.

1678746825727.png
 
I should look at these things more closely - I’ve only just noticed the temperature scale is different on these graphs. They both show the same thing but a 2 degree increase is very small on a scale of 0 - 120. He’s not arguing about the data, just presenting it differently in order to diminish it.

I couldn’t be arsed to read much of his article so am not sure exactly his point - it seems to be along the lines of ‘people aren’t noticing it so nothing to worry about’, but some of the comments to it are worth a look - a man posts a graph demonstrating the national debt has barely risen by using an unhelpful scale.

He’s a radio weather announcer. I’ll be pointing that out whenever he’s linked or quoted as he often seems to be. OK, he’s got an opinion but I really wouldn’t be going to him for actual science
 
With all the weather modification by government and private enterprise as well
as experimentation by the military world wide aimed at weaponizing as well as
likely using it against other nations, and this as been going on since at least the
end of WW11, no one as the slightest clue as to what the weather really is like
if left to it's own devises.
There have always been suspicion's that this disaster in 1952 was such a experiment
gone wrong, or right depending on your outlook.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences
 
I seriously doubt that, but I guess I'll find out.
I'd go beyond doubting it to describing it as total bollocks. I don't personally believe in anthropogenic climate change, but even if such a thing existed there is no possible way it would happen that fast.

In any case since all the largest consumers of fossil fuels have no intention of stopping it's pissing in the wind. And maybe the fact that they, possessed of many equally intelligent people to us (the Western Europe / US Trembling Classes) are 'not bothered' should tell us something.

I reiterate that in my opinion, looking at the much longer term vectors available from tree growth indexes and the like, the problem we have is that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to the spread of deserts and slowed growth of the vegetable life which is the fundamental underpinning of mammalian life on this plant.

And idiots demolishing rain forests.
 
Last edited:
Apparently global warming is robbing surfers of the surf:
https://heatmap.news/climate/can-surfing-survive-the-rising-seas
Put simply, surfing is made possible by the interplay of water and wind. Waves form as energy from gusts passes through water and underwater obstacles (shallower ocean floor, coral reefs, even a man-made jetty) trip them up, allowing the top of a wave to crest as the water below the surface slows down. Whether it’s surfable, however, depends on everything from the break’s geography to how high the tide is on any given day.

Models of future wave conditions indicate sea level rise could change the shape of waves that generations of surfers have relied on. A2017 analysis of 105 California surf spots found that 34% are at risk of “drowning” by 2100, meaning the wave will break too close to shore or not at all. Just 5% of the state’s surf spots are expected to improve, the study found.

Erosion, which will alter the shape of coastlines, is partly to blame. But surfing’s precarity also results from the larger volume of water inherent to sea level rise. Many breaks perform best at low or medium tide; but in most places, sea level rise will push high tide higher while rendering low tide unrecognizable.

Accordingly, head of the Surfrider Foundation’s coast and climate initiative Stefanie Sekich said, “millions of people … will have their surf breaks drowned before their eyes.” Sekich herself has already seen a treasured and unnamed pocket break near San Diego swallowed up by erosion.
 
Back
Top