Pessimistic about climate

[JagXKR]

Here's another one that's easy to disagree with but I'm sure what'supwiththat has some other explaination .

Arctic sea ice minimum extent has declined significantly since satellite measurements began in 1979, with the lowest values observed since 2012.............

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.1 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent each September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

But they have been saying the ice is decreasing by 5-10% per year for decades. Any simpleton knows that if you are always decreasing by these numbers then eventually you would get to zero. But we are no where near zero. Hmm?
The other thing is what is average and what is a max or min? As climate goes there is NO max min or average that should be taken as a reference. Climate is ever changing. We've been much colder and much hotter than we are today. All before the industrial revolution. What changed those climates?
Short answer is they don't know precisely. They have theories and there is some general consensus. But we have had ice free poles, near zero numbers of glaciers and temperatures that were far higher than anything we've seen in modern times. CO2 levels have been much much higher and life flourished.
The eco terrorists don't want to acknowledge these facts.
Makes me pessimistic about the sheep and their tiny brains that follow charlatans and mouthpieces masquerading as "scientists".

[fluffy]

But they have been saying the ice is decreasing by 5-10% per year for decades. Any simpleton knows that if you are always decreasing by these numbers then eventually you would get to zero. But we are no where near zero. Hmm?

It's a logarithmic regression, 5-10% decrease from where you start at the beginning of the year. You will never actually reach zero if that rate stays steady.

[foenix]

Ridiculous solar disconnect theory is wishful thinking and not provable. 

It's certainly a more valid theory than the proponents of the Milankovitch cycle theory as that theory was shot down from the 1970's.........and you know what they say about theories, if any part of it is proven false, then the rest of the theory false apart, like this.......

download-1.png

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-acti ... arming.htm

Explainer: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change

https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun ... ate-change

[fluffy]

Now all the major auto makers are eliminating new sales of gas/diesel/hybrid vehicles over the next decade or so.

There is something that has been gnawing at my mind for a bit, I just retired a few months ago and will be downsizing into a condo or townhouse this spring. I expect as the sale of new vehicles shifts to electric that existing gas burners will be "grandfathered" in for at least some period of time, which is my hope at the moment. What I'm wondering about, as are many, is the capability of electric infrastructure to keep pace with the growing numbers of EV's plugging in on a daily basis. More specifically, how much upgrading is going to be required in multi-unit residential developments ?

[foenix]

Here's another one that's easy to disagree with but I'm sure what'supwiththat has some other explaination .

But they have been saying the ice is decreasing by 5-10% per year for decades. Any simpleton knows that if you are always decreasing by these numbers then eventually you would get to zero. But we are no where near zero. Hmm?
The other thing is what is average and what is a max or min? As climate goes there is NO max min or average that should be taken as a reference.

I think you're confusing climate with the actual measurements of the Artic ice sheets in this case. The measuresuing of ice sheets is something that's quantifiable.

[JagXKR]

It's a logarithmic regression, 5-10% decrease from where you start at the beginning of the year. You will never actually reach zero if that rate stays steady.

Near zero, then. And your poor attempt at deflection does not address the facts about the decrease that is stated every year, for DECADES!
Put in 100, choose 5% and choose 30 years( the amount of years, minimum, that the eco nuts have been saying we are losing the ice)
https://goodcalculators.com/percentage- ... alculator/
100% ice coverage goes down to 21%. Yet we are nowhere near those levels. And I chose the LOW end of the eco terrorist lies and gross exaggerations. Try 10% and watch the ice go down to 4%.

Do not shine light unto the eco terrorists as their deception will burn into shreds of ash.
from the gospel of real science 4:11

[JagXKR]

I think you're confusing climate with the actual measurements of the Artic ice sheets in this case. The measuresuing of ice sheets is something that's quantifiable.

Wow. You telling me that I'm confused about science.

[hobbyguy]

Now all the major auto makers are eliminating new sales of gas/diesel/hybrid vehicles over the next decade or so.

There is something that has been gnawing at my mind for a bit, I just retired a few months ago and will be downsizing into a condo or townhouse this spring. I expect as the sale of new vehicles shifts to electric that existing gas burners will be "grandfathered" in for at least some period of time, which is my hope at the moment. What I'm wondering about, as are many, is the capability of electric infrastructure to keep pace with the growing numbers of EV's plugging in on a daily basis. More specifically, how much upgrading is going to be required in multi-unit residential developments ?

What I have found is that after retirement the number of miles driven declines pretty rapidly. Even more so if reasonable efforts are made to combine trips etc. That means that a maintained ICE vehicle can virtually last forever.

Plus the GHG contribution is minimal as roughly 1/2 of the GHG contribution for an ICE vehicle is in the manufacturing of the vehicle. Current BEV vehicles take 160% of the GHGs to manufacture versus and ICE (but over their lifespan emit virtually zero in BC context). TBH, I would never manage to "wear out" a new EV, so what's the point?

Yes, it is a transition to EVs. Gasoline/diesel will be available on an ongoing basis (for a retirees purposes) - but will become more expensive. Beware initiatives like that in Vancouver to charge hefty fees for street parking ICE vehicles. Make sure you have off street parking included in your choice.

If you are choosing between a townhouse and a condo, and you see a BEV in your future, consider that you have more options with a townhouse for charging. 110V charging would be virtually a guarantee in a townhouse - slow, but perhaps suitable for a retiree. 220V faster charging would be a relatively cost effective upgrade option in a townhouse, but not in a condo situation. (If you were buying a "presale" townhouse, it could be an option to have 220V charging circuitry roughed in, making a charging station upgrade more affordable in the future.)

IF the location of condo is close to a fast charging facility, then in house charging is less of an issue. Those fast charging stations are becoming more and more common. E,g, if Canadian Tire was on your list of visits, plug in there, and go do your shopping - come out, BEV charged.

The Canada target for all EV new sales by 2035 plus 20 years is a reasonable estimate for the lifespan of ICE fuel ready availability. Yup, by 2055 it will be expensive, so factoring in driving habits matters as does driving lifespan - many "super seniors" don't drive, instead relying on transit/Uber/cabs et al.

IF your options result in a location close to services/shopping then the scenario becomes even simpler. Simply walking becomes a later stage option.

[Jlabute]

Let's start with this one as it's fairly easy to disapprove. The GBR's corals are not at record high levels. It's true that they are recovering but the statement from Rudd in what's up with that is both misleading and false. That's what happens when an armchair scientist doesn't actually do their own field research, uses someone else's data and form opinions that enforces his own narrative.
Inaccurate: Numerous scientific studies show a decrease, not an increase, in coral growth over the past decade. International scientific organizations are not ignoring the improvement in coral communities, and acknowledge the influence of periods with low disturbance on the ability of damaged reefs to recover.

Misrepresents source: Peter Ridd misuses data from the Australian Institute of Marine Science in a graph showing how coral cover in the Great Barrier Reef has changed over time. Although the data show an improvement in the amount of coral covering the reef in 2021 compared to previous years, coral cover is not at a record high since 1985 for any region of the Great Barrier Reef............

The claim that the amount of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has increased over the past century and reached a record high in 2021 was published on 23 July 2021 in an article published by Peter Ridd, a former physicist at James Cook University. The article was published on several websites, including Climate Change Dispatch, Watts Up With That, and The Australian, and together received more than 10,000 interactions on social media according to the social media analytics tool Crowdtangle.

In the article, Ridd claims that the release of the latest annual report of the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences on the Great Barrier Reef shows a record high level of coral covering the reef. He uses this observation to claim that scientists who state that coral reefs are threatened by climate change are alarmists. These claims are not supported by scientific evidence and are based on misrepresentations of scientific data and a flawed understanding of coral reef science.

......and of course cyclones and starfish aren't made events but some theorize they become more polific and energetic (cyclone) because of effects from increase in global temperature from man made climate change.
Warmer seas are creating an additional threat to the Great Barrier Reef, with new research suggesting rising temperatures are helping a key coral predator thrive.

Crown-of-thorns starfish that eat coral are more likely to survive with rising sea-surface heat levels, according to a study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (Aims).

An Aims scientist, Sven Uthicke, said a study largely carried out at the institute’s marine laboratory in Townsville showed a 2C rise in sea temperature increased the starfish’s chances of survival by up to 240%.

“Warmer sea temperatures were found in this study to enhance COTS [Crown-of-thorns starfish] survival along with other, cumulative pressures on the reef,” he said.

Climate change is probably increasing the intensity of tropical cyclones

Gotta love those biased Facebook fact-checkers headed by graduate Emmanuel Vincent. Peter Ridd was the head of the physics and marine geophysical department at the evil JCU and foremost reef expert. Every expert world-wide acknowledges the GBR has rebounded, but is it record breaking? The multiple charts show separate areas of the GBR but you have to mathematically add the charts together to see the over-all trend.

An increase of about 100% in 6 years. Amazing considering cyclones and starfish and acid and temperature are increasing! Sounds like some facts are crooked or misunderstood or the science is definitely not settled. Shouldn't the GBR be declining instead with all those forces against it? It isn't.

Thankfully ocean temperatures are falling. (especially recently). Some experts say we are looking forward to 7 years of La Nina. Just another cycle.

https://www.thegwpf.com/global-oceans-t ... 6-el-nino/

The cycles of nature are amazing. ​'Climatefeedback's' Emmanuel Vincent the climate totalitarian fact-checker of facebook
are not smart enough to do this, but they are biased against everyone who disbelieves a climate emergency is at hand. Check John Stossel's lawsuit. Obviously Emmanuel can bare say a single truthful thing.

reefrecord.PNG

Minimum arctic sea ice extent (up-to-date). Antarctica is gaining ice too.

minarcticsie.jpg

You have yet to tell us what the current emergency is. I think the emergency is some humans have difficulty understanding complex non-linear systems and panic too easily.

[Jlabute]

Canada went from Climate Barbie to Climate Ken and twice as dumb.

More uplifting news to avoid pessimism. What you may have heard about Emperor Penguins (edit: in the ANTARCTIC) is likely incorrect, and their populations are healthily growing. Once again, an unfounded fear created by arm-chair modelers, and not based on real-life observations. I found this video quite interesting.

[foenix]

Thankfully ocean temperatures are falling. (especially recently). Some experts say we are looking forward to 7 years of La Nina. Just another cycle.

This is the same misleading statement like what you and Glacier made about global temperatures. You guys took a small section of the temperature curve after recording the highest average temperature for that year. Of course compared to the record year, other years will probably be lower than that particular year..........but what's left out is that in the short term cooling trend compared to the hottest year, is that those "cooling" years are still higher than normal and since the 1970's have increasingly gotten hotter.

It's the same logic here with ocean temperatures, if one looked at certain portion of the long term ocean temperature graph, it's just a short yerm variation in a graph that has the ocean temperature increasing overall. It's akin to a stock market graph, yes there are short term downward trends within an overall upward trend.

Here's the long term ocean temp trend.......

ocean_heat_content.gif

......and here's the short term cooling trend inside the long term increasing ocean temperature.......

loehles_ocean_heat.gif

In climate discussions, the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming.

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree over short periods. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.

https://skepticalscience.com/cooling-oc ... ediate.htm

[foenix]

minarcticsie.jpg.jpeg

This is the same logic as above, one is just looking at short term increase in ice coverage that part of an overall decrease in ice coverage........corresponds to the same years in which the global ocean temperature are in a short term deline, no?........but unfortunately, the overall trend is loss of ice.

[foenix]

Every expert world-wide acknowledges the GBR has rebounded, but is it record breaking? The multiple charts show separate areas of the GBR but you have to mathematically add the charts together to see the over-all trend.

Looks like to me Rudd is guilty of the same hyperbole and misleading statements he accuse his critics of because it sure doesn't look like it's "record breaking", although he tries to stretch his graph like it is.

In his article, Ridd also claims that scientists “generally downplayed or ignored” the reefs capacity to recover from bleaching or extreme weather events, however, scientific studies on coral reefs acknowledge the capability for the reefs to recover and grow after such events[7-9]. Doing so, Ridd neglects to address the complexity of the coral reef diversity, species dynamics and differences around the globe, and misleads the reader into thinking scientists ignore these facts.

As discussed in the AIMS report, the main hypothesis for the rapid recovery of the Great Barrier reefs during 2021 is that “2021 has been a low disturbance year”, and that a strong increase in fast growing Acropora corals created a shift in the population distribution of coral. These species easily colonize new territory and grow quickly, but they are also more susceptible to wave damage, coral bleaching, and predators, meaning that even if coral cover increases, the reef has not totally recovered from the last bleaching events............

Numerous scientific studies show a decrease, not an increase, in coral growth over the past decade. International scientific organizations are not ignoring the improvement in coral communities, and acknowledge the influence of periods with low disturbance on the ability of damaged reefs to recover.

Here's Rudd's graph which is based on the other 3 graphs......how is it record breaking when all three graph of the 3 different areas are only around the 1985 coral coverage?

AIMS-coral-reef-ridd.png

[Jlabute]

Here's Rudd's graph which is based on the other 3 graphs......how is it record breaking when all three graph of the 3 different areas are only around the 1985 coral coverage?

It is record breaking because Peter Ridd's chart (which is the sum of the three charts) at 2020 is greater than 1986.

[Jlabute]

This is the same logic as above, one is just looking at short term increase in ice coverage that part of an overall decrease in ice coverage........corresponds to the same years in which the global ocean temperature are in a short term decline, no?........but unfortunately, the overall trend is loss of ice.

The minimum ice extent increase occurs over 15 years. During this time, the earth has been "ON FIRE" and CO2 was increasing. There is no reason why arctic ice can increase because the trend is in a linear slide down to nothing, isn't it? That's the problem with 'CO2 is the main control knob' belief, you believe rise in CO2 causes everything, then find a way to explain away everything that contradicts it believable or not.

Antarctica just broke record cold temperatures with a winter average of -61.6c. The previous record was -60.6°C in 1976. Quite contradictory for an overheating planet. These intensely cold waters sink to the bottom and drift northward recirculating in the north Atlantic waters which is a cycle that can take 200 years. Todays climate is a combination of numerous cycles. After the last ice age, climate has been hotter than it is today, the oceans 5' higher than today, yet the arctic ice did not disappear.

From 1902 to 1940 arctic ice was decreasing. 1941 to 1980 ice was increasing. 1980 on it was decreasing. Unfortunately we only have a very tiny window of accurate data. Perhaps arctic sea ice was low during the Roman, medieval, and Minoan warm periods? After all, there are paths and tools found under modern glaciers today. The over-all trend if you look at a longer time period are cycles of increasing and decreasing... not loss.

Wanting to spend trillions based on unknowns, bad models, and short-sighted linear thinking is extremely poor policy.