Is climate change a fraud?

[Happier diner]

33 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Rather than cherry pick a date range that supports your belief, why not post a (say) 100 year temperature chart? And less than a degree - seriously?

I'm sure he will. You may regret asking.

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes somewhat selective data I would say. But it’s what these climate change Johnny’s do .

Bollocks. 

[Expat.]

25 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

Rather than cherry pick a date range that supports your belief, why not post a (say) 100 year temperature chart? And less than a degree - seriously?

You should be able to understand that the concern is the unremitting rise in global temperature over the last seventy five years. The only thing which can account for it is the corresponding rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It's not weather it's climate and it has never changed this much this quickly without there being a global extinction event to account for it. It took 90000 years to set up the last ice age and it took the Earth to deviate from its orbit round the sun to cause it. Around 92 million years ago, and again 50 million years ago there were two huge heat spikes most likely (i know, I know, but nobody was there) where the temperature went up by around 8 oC and life just about clung on at the poles.

In terms of global temperature increase 1 oC doesn't impress you, but it is huge.

[The Voice of Reason]

We will be fine. Stop being scaredy cats.

[NoTail]

I think this graph is relevant 

[Happier diner]

22 minutes ago, NoTail said:

I think this graph is relevant 

What point are you making? 

[Chinahand]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Rather than cherry pick a date range that supports your belief, why not post a (say) 100 year temperature chart? And less than a degree - seriously?

Ah Stu, what a pity, you've never researched this topic in any detail.

It's a shame you don't know about the University of Alabama's work on the use of satellites to record the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

Surprise surprise the satellites to do this haven't been around very long. It wasn't until 1979 that enough satellites with the appropriate sensors were put into orbit to create a reading of the temperature of the entire earth's lower troposphere.

Now these direct readings of the atmosphere removed all the issues about weather stations positioned in urban heat islands as cities grew. The amount of data and the integration of readings was an order of magnitude higher than the results from averaging individual weather stations, and the results were direct readings across the entire earth's atmosphere.

Now doing this isn't easy. Satellite orbits decay, the sensor's need to be calibrated, the swath and look down angles vary. Upgraded sensors get launched on later satellites and their slightly different readings integrated with earlier the results from earlier instrumentation. Getting the data beamed down to earth from each satellite in the orbital train is a huge endeavour to ensure bits aren't dropped and multiple data sets are correctly integrated and processed.

This was really cutting edge engineering and it was hard and mistakes were made and found and corrected. Most famously a minus sign was added by mistake somewhere in a million lines of code which manifested itself in an unexpected difference between the surface and the satellite record. Scientists love it when unexpected results come in, and so they investigated and investigated and rather than a scientific discovery a much more mundane correction resulted and the satellite record data was shown to align with the surface record.

Notice the match, Stu?

If you were bothered to actually learn something, Stu, you'd know that the University of Alabama Huntsville UAH group aren't the only scientists working on using Satellites to understand changes in the Earth's temperature. Remote Sensing Systems - a private for profit company also works with microwave sensors mounted on satellites to generate temperature data. Their results though never identical - you wouldn't expect them to be - are very highly correlated with UAH's and show similar trends. Both satellite and weather station data have a detailed consilience.

And yes, let's look at longer term trends should we:

The last 2000 years:

The last 10,000 years:

Now, Stu, I seem to remember raising similar graphs many times on this site.

Did you read them?

Do you understand that the issue isn't so much that the Earth's temperature is at a particular level. The earth has been hotter and cooler in the past. Rather the real issue is the rate of change how ecosystems will adapt to sudden change. So yes 8000 years ago the earth was about as hot as it is now. 

You do understand, don't you Stu, that  a couple of degrees temperature difference is the difference between a mile of ice over Saint John's or today's Balmy weather? So yes 1 degree or so since 1979 is hugely significant and concerning. Are you really so ignorant on this issue that you didn't know that, Stu?

And there's another issue, we understand Milankovitch cycles - we understand how the energy balance of the earth changed as it's orbital gyrations around the sun increased and decreased the energy incidence into the poles - what causes in a single orbit the seasons.

Do you see the long slow increase and decrease in the diagram above - that is the Earth moving from an interglacial back into a glacial period. 

We understand the changes of forcing that cause these changes, and can compare it to what is happening today.

A good test of a person's knowledge of the issue - ask them the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 ... got any sense of that figure Stu?

This figure is really important - it can't be too low - or the earth is too insensitive to small changes, and so you couldn't explain why changes like the Milankovitch cycles cause glacial cycles. But also it can't be too high and the earth hugely sensitive to CO2, or else the changes man has caused would have been far more visible over the last 150 years. The data on the time scales I've presented allow us a pretty good understanding of what we are facing as we burn ever more carbon into our atmosphere.

So no Stu, I wasn't cherry picking. I was putting up a record which isn't affected by all the heat island issues your supposed-expert raised. And yes, I'm happy to ensure the information I put up isn't cherry picked. I'll give you the wider context. And if your interested why not read about a multi-million year analysis here:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/phantastic-job/

I find it more than a little hilarious that you want to throw around the label cherry picking, Stu, when your so-called-expert produced one of the most disengenuous examples of it I have ever encountered.

Ah well, Mr Peter's and his gut. What a wonderful qualification for Tynwald's climate sceptic.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[NoTail]

 Chinahand explains very well the problem and the cause. He explains how pumping carbon into the atmosphere is the main issue, although there are other gasses such as methane of concern. I would argue that my population graph is indeed relevant as the cause of the pumping of the carbon is people.

What Chiahand does not do is propose what is to be done. We can't simply euphenise the population. I don't see the solution at all. Building windmills and solar panels as fast as possible seems a possible route but I personally doubt it's sufficient or necessarily right as the consequences may be even worse. Nuclear fusion would be good but does not exist yet.

[TheTeapot]

https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/

In that first graph @Chinahand posted with the massive spike at the end, you look at that spike and think 'well that's unusual, wonder if there is anything that could have caused it'. Wonder what caused the one in the 90s.

[Chinahand]

It is mainly El Nino. 

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni

 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/

In that first graph @Chinahand posted with the massive spike at the end, you look at that spike and think 'well that's unusual, wonder if there is anything that could have caused it'. Wonder what caused the one in the 90s.

Human activity. Is anyone denying that?

[Lost Login]

When this thread pops up I always wish I could change the title to "Is Stu Peters a fraud?" based on the drivel he posts.

[HiVibes]

25 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

When this thread pops up I always wish I could change the title to "Is Stu Peters a fraud?" based on the drivel he posts.

He is a fraud, the transparent strong voice for the anti-woke ended up the lazy man having quiet words that he can't talk about... Just a old sad lonely social media troll looking for attention. 

[Stu Peters]

10 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Ah Stu, what a pity, you've never researched this topic in any detail.

It's a shame you don't know about the University of Alabama's work on the use of satellites to record the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

Surprise surprise the satellites to do this haven't been around very long. It wasn't until 1979 that enough satellites with the appropriate sensors were put into orbit to create a reading of the temperature of the entire earth's lower troposphere.

Now these direct readings of the atmosphere removed all the issues about weather stations positioned in urban heat islands as cities grew. The amount of data and the integration of readings was an order of magnitude higher than the results from averaging individual weather stations, and the results were direct readings across the entire earth's atmosphere.

Now doing this isn't easy. Satellite orbits decay, the sensor's need to be calibrated, the swath and look down angles vary. Upgraded sensors get launched on later satellites and their slightly different readings integrated with earlier the results from earlier instrumentation. Getting the data beamed down to earth from each satellite in the orbital train is a huge endeavour to ensure bits aren't dropped and multiple data sets are correctly integrated and processed.

This was really cutting edge engineering and it was hard and mistakes were made and found and corrected. Most famously a minus sign was added by mistake somewhere in a million lines of code which manifested itself in an unexpected difference between the surface and the satellite record. Scientists love it when unexpected results come in, and so they investigated and investigated and rather than a scientific discovery a much more mundane correction resulted and the satellite record data was shown to align with the surface record.

Notice the match, Stu?

If you were bothered to actually learn something, Stu, you'd know that the University of Alabama Huntsville UAH group aren't the only scientists working on using Satellites to understand changes in the Earth's temperature. Remote Sensing Systems - a private for profit company also works with microwave sensors mounted on satellites to generate temperature data. Their results though never identical - you wouldn't expect them to be - are very highly correlated with UAH's and show similar trends. Both satellite and weather station data have a detailed consilience.

And yes, let's look at longer term trends should we:

The last 2000 years:

The last 10,000 years:

Now, Stu, I seem to remember raising similar graphs many times on this site.

Did you read them?

Do you understand that the issue isn't so much that the Earth's temperature is at a particular level. The earth has been hotter and cooler in the past. Rather the real issue is the rate of change how ecosystems will adapt to sudden change. So yes 8000 years ago the earth was about as hot as it is now. 

You do understand, don't you Stu, that  a couple of degrees temperature difference is the difference between a mile of ice over Saint John's or today's Balmy weather? So yes 1 degree or so since 1979 is hugely significant and concerning. Are you really so ignorant on this issue that you didn't know that, Stu?

And there's another issue, we understand Milankovitch cycles - we understand how the energy balance of the earth changed as it's orbital gyrations around the sun increased and decreased the energy incidence into the poles - what causes in a single orbit the seasons.

Do you see the long slow increase and decrease in the diagram above - that is the Earth moving from an interglacial back into a glacial period. 

We understand the changes of forcing that cause these changes, and can compare it to what is happening today.

A good test of a person's knowledge of the issue - ask them the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 ... got any sense of that figure Stu?

This figure is really important - it can't be too low - or the earth is too insensitive to small changes, and so you couldn't explain why changes like the Milankovitch cycles cause glacial cycles. But also it can't be too high and the earth hugely sensitive to CO2, or else the changes man has caused would have been far more visible over the last 150 years. The data on the time scales I've presented allow us a pretty good understanding of what we are facing as we burn ever more carbon into our atmosphere.

So no Stu, I wasn't cherry picking. I was putting up a record which isn't affected by all the heat island issues your supposed-expert raised. And yes, I'm happy to ensure the information I put up isn't cherry picked. I'll give you the wider context. And if your interested why not read about a multi-million year analysis here:

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/phantastic-job/

I find it more than a little hilarious that you want to throw around the label cherry picking, Stu, when your so-called-expert produced one of the most disengenuous examples of it I have ever encountered.

Ah well, Mr Peter's and his gut. What a wonderful qualification for Tynwald's climate sceptic.

You couldn't make it up.

 

I feel duly patronised by someone who can’t even spell my name.

[HiVibes]

10 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I feel duly patronised by someone who can’t even spell my name.

did he miss the pid off?

[Albert Tatlock]

12 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

I feel duly patronised by someone who can’t even spell my name.

A 'Peter' has another meaning 🤣