Is climate change a fraud?

[Mercenary]

Does it even matter for the IOM if CC is 'real' or not .... It's an investment of £40m to reduce the spend (and capital outflow) on gas/other dispatchable generation by £15m a year. Making IOM less dependent on external energy market etc.

[Albert Tatlock]

6 minutes ago, NoTail said:

A BSc is a bachelor of Science. 

Doesn't make someone a scientist though, for that most employers think you need an MSc AND a PhD, plus experience.

[Gladys]

23 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Doesn't make someone a scientist though, for that most employers think you need an MSc AND a PhD, plus experience.

Scientist is a general term, and yes he has  BSc and MSc, but it seems he is an engineer, which is really applied science rather than science research. 

[Two-lane]

It may be said that water is the most important thing for life. But for modern societies, the most important thing is electricity.

Without electricity there are no pumps to supply processed water, and there is no way for the average person to boil  rainwater. There would be no refrigeration for medicines, amongst other essentials

In England, if Budleigh Salterton had its electricity supply disabled, there would be the possibility of immediately bringing in generators, and the men with big rubber gloves would be fixing the overhead wires overnight.

The IoM, as an island with a substantial population, cannot be evacuated. Its reliance on an electricity supply is greater than that of larger populations. The standard redundancy factor calculations do not apply here.

Interconnectors have been disabled. Multiple interconnectors in the same location have been disabled.

It is essential that the island has a power station, preferably two, plus interconnectors. If that is so, what is the gain from having a wind farm?  Just the reduction the gas consumption on a windy day, versus the environmental cost of the manufacture, installation, maintenance and 15/20-year replacement of the turbines.

In global terms, it is less than zero. In reality the only gain is that some people can claim that "the IoM is helping save the planet". In other words, it is ego.

[The Voice of Reason]

48 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

lol. That makes me a scientist.

And I’m a BA that makes me an artist.

Before anyone else says it, that sort of artist.

[Chinahand]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 

Oh fuck ... why did I watch that. Talk about cherry picking.

1st graph he puts up = average temperatures in 2007 are -30.8 degrees C. This man is using temperatures from a Greenland ice core to discuss the Isle of Man. It's also been doctored. It clearly states that it is a Years before present (1950) record, which someone has added a 2007 figure.

He's also missing the point the issue is extreme weather not previous temperature highs. No one who understands this issue disputes climate has changed in the past, or that temperatures were higher previously [dinosaurs in polar regions anyone]. The issue is the rate of change and the Anthropogenic causes of the change which we have the ability to reduce. 

There's a lot of data that climate change is increasing extreme weather events - one of my favourite examples upland intense rainfall creating flooding events.

He claims temperatures were higher in the 1930s. That is rot.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempdiag.htm

Or if the met office isn't good enough try UC Berkely:

https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2024-temperature-update/

He then again using BP [1950] data makes statements about tree line changes which are also misinformed:

https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/mountain-treelines-on-the-move-in-a-warming-world/#:~:text=“Previous studies have focused on,dominant control of treeline position.

[I've a relative who is actually doing data analysis on these issues at the moment. Dreadful cherry picking.]

He then talks about heat island effects. Oh gosh how hasn't this been considered previously. shock horror.

Erm ... no a well understood issue:

https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/urban-heat-islands

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479719317244

And his photos of the Ronaldsway met instruments. Yes, he has a slight point ... but that concrete has been there basically unchanged since the 1950s or earlier. The fact that that met station is recording record temperatures now, compared to in 2010s is not due to a local heat island effect ... the effect was the same, the concrete was the same ditto in the noughties, the 1990s 1980s etc.

You do have to consider the effect of the concrete when comparing it to historical results when the concrete wasn't there, and huge efforts have been put in by NASA, the Met Office and Berkeley Earth etc to quantify and adjust for this, but for measurements at Ronaldsway for the last 50 years, it's basically irrelevant.

Oh goodness ... he's trying to make out 2023 wasn't that anomalous - "these have occurred and do occur all the time".

From April 2023 something started happening to sea surface temperatures which was hugely anomalous:

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

 This is something which is seriously worrying as the ability of the oceans to retain CO2 is related to their temperature - the hotter they get the less CO2 they can absorb, and in fact they can start to return it to the atmosphere.

There is a huge amount of science looking at why 2023 was so unusual:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023/

To claim this isn't abnormal is a deliberate distortion.

He then makes a claim that researches don't examine these things over long periods to show the trends and states "they don't do that".

Oh my goodness, really? The ignorance and/or deliberate blindness of the man:

https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Extreme_Weather/EASAC_Statement_Extreme_Weather_Events_March_2018_FINAL.pdf

https://www.copernicus.eu/en/news/news/observer-esotc-2023-europe-experienced-extraordinary-year-extremes-record-breaking

He then ignores the Met offices work on extreme rainfall. Going on about yearly averages, not about rainfall intensity. Which is increasing and is correlated with global warming. 

What I find hilarious is the claims the Met Office supports him ... odd that this is a Met Office report.

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/111577/7/Scientific Report UK Storms.pdf

He's distorting using monthly averages, rather than individual intense rainfall.

Also it's interesting he's willing to quote a report identifying that the Atlantic osillation is reducing wind storms, but omits a far stronger trend in the same report showing winter rainfall getting far worse:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.8167 

"EWP shows a marked increase in winter rainfall"

An expert on floods doesn't mention that there is a strong trend in increasing winter rainfall. Dreadful cherry picking.

He ridicules a prediction that winter rainfall will increase, while ignoring evidence presented in the work he has selectively quoted showing that this prediction is evidence based.

Oh Christ, he's just made a claim that natural cycles will result in cooling.

Does this man have any idea on Climate sensitivity and how natural climate forcings are being totally dominated by anthropogenic forcings which will last may hundreds of years. 

He now goes on to list all the things there is no evidence for in the IPPC AR6.

I couldn't find his table 12. I presume it is buried in a technical annex, but table 2.1 in the AR6 Synthesis Report is quite a counter to it:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf

Without access to the table, I can't say if he is representing it correctly, but I wonder if he'll acknowledge it is a scientific fact that we have warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times, raised Global Mean sea level since 1970 and that it is extremely likely or virtually certain the cryosphere is being impacted and the oceans warmed etc.

Stop Press... I've found 12.12. It is in here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

It's quite challenging to critique what he's said without going into great detail. There are pages of nuance added to what he's cherry picking.

Right below Table 12.12 is Box 12.1 which goes into far more detail

Cross-Chapter Box 12.1 | Projections by Warming Levels of Hazards Relevant to the Assessment of Representative Key Risks and Reasons for Concern

Just a few examples - Precipitation. Which he claims there is no evidence for a impact caused by Global warming. 

This is what we can observe now:

Frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage (high confidence) and at the continental scale in North America, Europe and Asia. Larger percentage increases in heavy precipitation observed in the northern high latitudes in all seasons, and in the mid-latitudes in the cold season (high confidence). Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy rainfall also observed in most parts of Asia, north-west Australia, northern Europe, South-Eastern South America, and most of the USA (high confidence), and West and Southern Africa, Central Europe, the eastern Mediterranean region, Mexico, and North-Western South America (medium confidence). GHGs likely the main cause.

And this is what we think will happen as global warming continues:

Precipitation events – including those associated with tropical cyclones (TCs) – increase with GSAT. For GWLs >2°C very rare (e.g., 1-in-10 or more years) heavy precipitation events more frequent and more intense over all continents (virtually certain) and nearly all AR6 regions (likely). Likelihood lower at lower GWLs and for less-rare events. At the global scale, intensification of heavy precipitation generally follows Clausius–Clapeyron (about 6–7% per °C of GSAT warming; high confidence). Increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events accelerates with warming, higher for rarer events (high confidence), with approximately a doubling and tripling frequency of 10-year and 50-year events, respectively, at 4°C of global warming.

This is far more detail, than his statements about no evidence and the scientific base doesn't support what the Manx report is saying.

I cannot comprehend how this man can miss so many issues and cherry pick issues to such an extend that he can be considered neutral.

Another thing - he mixes up annual tax take with total Green spend. Another distortion.

Ah ... Stu Peters what a huge disappointment.

I hope you haven't paid money for this man to come and talk on the island and spread his distortions.

[HiVibes]

1 hour ago, NoTail said:

A BSc is a bachelor of Science. 

I know I have one, but it does not mean he is a scientist, a degree is a pretty low level of achievement.

[Mercenary]

53 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

It is essential that the island has a power station, preferably two, plus interconnectors. If that is so, what is the gain from having a wind farm?  Just the reduction the gas consumption on a windy day, versus the environmental cost of the manufacture, installation, maintenance and 15/20-year replacement of the turbines.

In global terms, it is less than zero. In reality the only gain is that some people can claim that "the IoM is helping save the planet". In other words, it is ego.

'Less than zero' = £15m/a year!

 

Even with power plants and interconnectors, you are still paying for the dispatchable electricity which would be offset by the entirety of what the wind turbines generate. Dispatchable generation and/or interconnectors and/or synchronous condensers are required to maintain grid resilience and stability, but regardless of these relatively fixed costs it absolutely still makes sense to reduce the bought-in amount of energy and reduce the operational expenditure.

 

To give an analogy - perhaps you need a car to get around for work or whatever, and cover a great number of miles per year. To drive a more efficient hybrid that requires much less petrol for the same mileage is not virtue signalling, (subject to the additional fixed costs) - it can save you substantial money!!

 

 

 

[Chinahand]

4 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Ah yes, ignore the inconvenient truth of his clear expertise and seek to deflect.

He's not presented any evidence of his expertise... Other than expertise in being selective and willfully blind. 

 

[WTF]

8 hours ago, Chinahand said:

 

 The issue is the rate of change and the Anthropogenic causes of the change which we have the ability to reduce. 

 

if its going to change anyway , why try and slow it down ? we are paying great sums of money trying to be the king canutes of climate change. we might as well adapt/evolve sooner rather than later to our new environment. 

[HiVibes]

27 minutes ago, WTF said:

if its going to change anyway , why try and slow it down ? we are paying great sums of money trying to be the king canutes of climate change. we might as well adapt/evolve sooner rather than later to our new environment. 

It's about limiting the rise to a degree so the planet is still livable  Inaction so far has meant a rise is inevitable. How much money do you think adapting to the new environment where there is much less agricultural land and whole cities and islands under water will cost in comparison to just stoping burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables?

[WTF]

17 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

It's about limiting the rise to a degree so the planet is still livable  Inaction so far has meant a rise is inevitable. How much money do you think adapting to the new environment where there is much less agricultural land and whole cities and islands under water will cost in comparison to just stoping burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables?

cheaper now rather than  later.

[Happier diner]

37 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

It's about limiting the rise to a degree so the planet is still livable  Inaction so far has meant a rise is inevitable. How much money do you think adapting to the new environment where there is much less agricultural land and whole cities and islands under water will cost in comparison to just stoping burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables?

You have gone up in my estimation young man. 👍

[Happier diner]

19 minutes ago, WTF said:

cheaper now rather than  later.

Almost certainly. 

[Harry Lamb]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

Scientist is a general term, and yes he has  BSc and MSc, but it seems he is an engineer, which is really applied science rather than science research. 

So a plumber with aspirations?