Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

Earth has been cooling since 2015 in a mini hiatus.

I see what you're getting at, it's the same technique whatsupwiththat uses to mislead in that y'all are looking at very small trends that are opposite to the greater long term trend, like when you say the Greenland ice shelf is growing. Yeah it's true in some subsequent years the ice or the temperture is going the opposite direction to the overall long term trend but that doesn't mean either the Greenland ice shelf is growing or that the earth surface temperature is decreasing LONG TERM....

[captkirkcanada]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Grinding anxiety turns into fear for many Alaska Natives when storms hit.

In dozens of villages, the ground is threatening to erode away from under homes, fuel tanks, water and sewer systems, buildings, bridges, roads and runways.

And no one knows the threat of climate change more than residents of Newtok, a village in western Alaska that already is trying to relocate to higher ground. Water has been eroding the shore there at the rate of 125 to 150 feet per year, and the school now sits just 120 feet from the water.

“There's some really big needs for this relocation and some really scary moments right now with lack of funding for a school and housing,” Newtok Relocation Project Manager Patrick Lemay, of Lemay Engineering and Consulting, told Indian Country Today.

“We're looking at possibly water being at the front door of the school within the next 12 months with no funding for a new school in the new location,” he said.

Newtok is one of several Alaska Native communities facing immediate risk of becoming uninhabitable in the next five years because of coastal erosion and flooding, according to studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Government Accountability Office.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet. Sea ice that once extended miles from the shore and protected the coast from fall and winter storms now freezes later in the year and melts earlier. Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, is thawing, making it more vulnerable to erosion.

The Newtok residents are among tens of thousands of tribal citizens across Indian Country forced to choose between staying in their ancestral lands or moving away to protect themselves from the devastation of climate change, according to an informal survey by Indian Country Today.

In Alaska, Washington, Louisiana, Florida and other coastal states, Indigenous people are facing floods, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and extreme storms. The Southwest and Plains have been hit with drought, wildfires, heat, lowered water tables and depleted waterways. And they’re all facing loss of habitat and a reduction in traditional food sources for people, livestock and wildlife.

https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/on- ... here-to-go time is running out

[Jlabute]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Grinding anxiety turns into fear for many Alaska Natives when storms hit.

In dozens of villages, the ground is threatening to erode away from under homes, fuel tanks, water and sewer systems, buildings, bridges, roads and runways.

And no one knows the threat of climate change more than residents of Newtok, a village in western Alaska that already is trying to relocate to higher ground. Water has been eroding the shore there at the rate of 125 to 150 feet per year, and the school now sits just 120 feet from the water.

“There's some really big needs for this relocation and some really scary moments right now with lack of funding for a school and housing,” Newtok Relocation Project Manager Patrick Lemay, of Lemay Engineering and Consulting, told Indian Country Today.

“We're looking at possibly water being at the front door of the school within the next 12 months with no funding for a new school in the new location,” he said.

Newtok is one of several Alaska Native communities facing immediate risk of becoming uninhabitable in the next five years because of coastal erosion and flooding, according to studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Government Accountability Office.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet. Sea ice that once extended miles from the shore and protected the coast from fall and winter storms now freezes later in the year and melts earlier. Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, is thawing, making it more vulnerable to erosion.

The Newtok residents are among tens of thousands of tribal citizens across Indian Country forced to choose between staying in their ancestral lands or moving away to protect themselves from the devastation of climate change, according to an informal survey by Indian Country Today.

In Alaska, Washington, Louisiana, Florida and other coastal states, Indigenous people are facing floods, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and extreme storms. The Southwest and Plains have been hit with drought, wildfires, heat, lowered water tables and depleted waterways. And they’re all facing loss of habitat and a reduction in traditional food sources for people, livestock and wildlife.

https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/on- ... here-to-go time is running out

Blaming Newtok problems on climate change knowing their community is built on a sand-spit below sea level is highly dubious. It is reminiscent of the pacific islands that were screaming for financial help against rising sea levels from wiping them out. So they built 4 airports, and since then the majority of the islands have increased in land mass. 'Climate change' is what people say when they have no clue. Newtok does have an issue. Some places are not appropriate to live and they will be relocated.

Off the coast of BC there are native habitats 400 feet below sea level. Climate change forced them away 13000 years ago.

[captkirkcanada]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/35 ... r-10-years



If anyone is surprised by this then you have not been paying attention.

[captkirkcanada]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Grinding anxiety turns into fear for many Alaska Natives when storms hit.

In dozens of villages, the ground is threatening to erode away from under homes, fuel tanks, water and sewer systems, buildings, bridges, roads and runways.

And no one knows the threat of climate change more than residents of Newtok, a village in western Alaska that already is trying to relocate to higher ground. Water has been eroding the shore there at the rate of 125 to 150 feet per year, and the school now sits just 120 feet from the water.

“There's some really big needs for this relocation and some really scary moments right now with lack of funding for a school and housing,” Newtok Relocation Project Manager Patrick Lemay, of Lemay Engineering and Consulting, told Indian Country Today.

“We're looking at possibly water being at the front door of the school within the next 12 months with no funding for a new school in the new location,” he said.

Newtok is one of several Alaska Native communities facing immediate risk of becoming uninhabitable in the next five years because of coastal erosion and flooding, according to studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Government Accountability Office.

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet. Sea ice that once extended miles from the shore and protected the coast from fall and winter storms now freezes later in the year and melts earlier. Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, is thawing, making it more vulnerable to erosion.

The Newtok residents are among tens of thousands of tribal citizens across Indian Country forced to choose between staying in their ancestral lands or moving away to protect themselves from the devastation of climate change, according to an informal survey by Indian Country Today.

In Alaska, Washington, Louisiana, Florida and other coastal states, Indigenous people are facing floods, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and extreme storms. The Southwest and Plains have been hit with drought, wildfires, heat, lowered water tables and depleted waterways. And they’re all facing loss of habitat and a reduction in traditional food sources for people, livestock and wildlife.

https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/on- ... here-to-go time is running out

Blaming Newtok problems on climate change knowing their community is built on a sand-spit below sea level is highly dubious. It is reminiscent of the pacific islands that were screaming for financial help against rising sea levels from wiping them out. So they built 4 airports, and since then the majority of the islands have increased in land mass. 'Climate change' is what people say when they have no clue. Newtok does have an issue. Some places are not appropriate to live and they will be relocated.

Off the coast of BC there are native habitats 400 feet below sea level. Climate change forced them away 13000 years ago.

The earth is a bathtub, when water locked as ice melts, sea level rises like a bathtub level rises when adding water. It is very simple to understand.

In 2007, The New York Times reported that erosion made Newtok an island between the widening Ningliq River and a slough to the north, because Alaskan permafrost is melting due to climate change.[7] Coastal storms and thawing permafrost have worn away the land upon which Newtok was built. According to The New York Times article, because the village is below sea-level and sinking, the town could be washed away within a decade.[7]

This was the hightide in Richmond the other day. 12 inches from over topping the dyke . 12 more inches and Richmond floods.

[captkirkcanada]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/356663 ... arch-shows

Looks like castanet is onboard with climate change now

[captkirkcanada]

LAST WEEK, a North Dakota court ruled against a bid by the oil company Energy Transfer to keep documents about its security contractor’s operations against anti-pipeline activism secret. The court thwarted the pipeline giant’s attempt to narrow the definition of a public record and withhold thousands of documents from the press. Judge Cynthia Feland ruled that Energy Transfer’s contract with the security firm TigerSwan cannot prevent the state’s private security licensing board from sharing these records with The Intercept, refusing to accept the company’s attempt to exempt the records from open government laws.

“This is the first opinion that I’ve been aware of that’s made it clear that when you give records to a public entity like this private investigation board, they become public records,” said Jack McDonald, attorney for the North Dakota Newspaper Association. “What relationship there was between Energy Transfer and TigerSwan — that doesn’t affect the records.”


https://theintercept.com/2022/01/06/dak ... documents/


When a company tries to hide public records, you know they have bad things to keep secret.

[captkirkcanada]

Money doing some talking.


A coalition of investors managing 50 trillion euros ($56.81 trillion) has warned the European Union not to label natural gas investments as sustainable, saying Brussels' draft plan to do so would weaken its global leadership on green finance.

The European Commission drafted a plan late last year to label some gas and nuclear investments as green in the EU's "taxonomy," a long-awaited rule book to define which investments can be labelled as climate-friendly in Europe.

"We remain strongly opposed to any inclusion of gas within the scope of the Taxonomy," IIGCC Chief Executive Stephanie Pfeifer said in an open letter to European Union member states and the bloc's policymakers.

"It is our view that the proposals... would seriously compromise Europe’s status as a global leader in sustainable finance, potentially triggering a 'race to the bottom' which could dilute the level of climate ambition within emerging jurisdictional taxonomies."

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-01-12/


Natural gas is out before it even gets started, what a relief

[Jlabute]

Money doing some talking.

Yup, and all it says is "Good-bye".

A coalition of investors managing 50 trillion euros ($56.81 trillion) has warned the European Union not to label natural gas investments as sustainable, saying Brussels' draft plan to do so would weaken its global leadership on green finance.

The European Commission drafted a plan late last year to label some gas and nuclear investments as green in the EU's "taxonomy," a long-awaited rule book to define which investments can be labelled as climate-friendly in Europe.

"We remain strongly opposed to any inclusion of gas within the scope of the Taxonomy," IIGCC Chief Executive Stephanie Pfeifer said in an open letter to European Union member states and the bloc's policymakers.

"It is our view that the proposals... would seriously compromise Europe’s status as a global leader in sustainable finance, potentially triggering a 'race to the bottom' which could dilute the level of climate ambition within emerging jurisdictional taxonomies."

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-01-12/


Natural gas is out before it even gets started, what a relief

Natural gas is not out despite any warning. Use of natural gas is up in the UK. You can't power a modern world on solar and wind, you'll only kill people and cause riots. Gas and Nuclear are being labelled as green because they are greener than coal and perfect for transitioning. You thought you could just go cold-turkey with renewables? That is pure unicorn dreams. Of course, as you literally WASTE money on renewables, more gas is required for backup electric production. Renewables cause gas use to go up, and consumer costs to go up. All the trillions you spend accomplish nothing in a practical sense. While YOU put future generations in to unrecoverable debt, the rest of the world is burning more coal and the UK is burning more gas as a tiny bit of coal is phased out. Not to mention, nothing is happening to the world in your made-up frenzy.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/article ... 10856.html

[Jlabute]

Earth has been cooling since 2015 in a mini hiatus.

I see what you're getting at, it's the same technique whatsupwiththat uses to mislead in that y'all are looking at very small trends that are opposite to the greater long term trend, like when you say the Greenland ice shelf is growing. Yeah it's true in some subsequent years the ice or the temperature is going the opposite direction to the overall long term trend but that doesn't mean either the Greenland ice shelf is growing or that the earth surface temperature is decreasing LONG TERM....

LONG TERM trends are longer than what we have accurate data for, and can be hundreds or thousands of years for some cycles. Meteorologists typically define climate using 30 year periods. So our current 30 year period ending 2021 statistically shows no warming. So if you overlay CO2 since 1990 with temperature, you wouldn't think CO2 is doing anything and much of the effect is due to El Nino. Now with La Nina strengthening, and a stronger solar minimum in effect, we see a downward trend in global temperature.

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confi ... d-of-2021/

[Jlabute]

Coral reef is at an all-time high in 2021, since 1985. What disturbs me the most about your link is that this is a well-known picture of healthy coral being called bleached, when it isn't. A number of authors have parroted this lie. There are lots of articles on it, here is one.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/11/he ... oto-check/

If that's the case please show some data, besides a blogger's personal opinion that says that the world wide coral population is at an all time high in 2021 because all I saw were articles like this.....

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2221004747

Decade of climate breakdown saw 14 per cent of coral reefs vanish

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1102242

The Sixth Status of Corals of the World: 2020 Report

https://gcrmn.net/2020-report/

There is no climate breakdown. That is silly hyperbole. Scientists are more than 'bloggers'. That is silly.

I never was speaking of world-wide coral, I was speaking of the Great Barrier reef. You've already seen the government data numerous times. If you don't believe measured government data, then explain why. The graph supplied by Dr. Peter Ridd averaged those three areas from 1985 to today. It is obvious looking at it.

There is a lot more to coral health than you know. Certainly colonies will go through flux and stress but always recover and adapt to continually changing ocean conditions and cloud cover. Bleached coral is not dead coral.

[captkirkcanada]

I see what you're getting at, it's the same technique whatsupwiththat uses to mislead in that y'all are looking at very small trends that are opposite to the greater long term trend, like when you say the Greenland ice shelf is growing. Yeah it's true in some subsequent years the ice or the temperature is going the opposite direction to the overall long term trend but that doesn't mean either the Greenland ice shelf is growing or that the earth surface temperature is decreasing LONG TERM....

LONG TERM trends are longer than what we have accurate data for, and can be hundreds or thousands of years for some cycles. Meteorologists typically define climate using 30 year periods. So our current 30 year period ending 2021 statistically shows no warming. So if you overlay CO2 since 1990 with temperature, you wouldn't think CO2 is doing anything and much of the effect is due to El Nino. Now with La Nina strengthening, and a stronger solar minimum in effect, we see a downward trend in global temperature.

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confi ... d-of-2021/


uah-global-1995to202111-w-co2-overlay.png

climate change that normally happens in hundreds of thousands of years instead is now happening in decades means one thing to me. It is also worth noting that weather folks and climate researchers are not the same thing and those who think they are is not worth my time.

[Jlabute]

LONG TERM trends are longer than what we have accurate data for, and can be hundreds or thousands of years for some cycles. Meteorologists typically define climate using 30 year periods. So our current 30 year period ending 2021 statistically shows no warming. So if you overlay CO2 since 1990 with temperature, you wouldn't think CO2 is doing anything and much of the effect is due to El Nino. Now with La Nina strengthening, and a stronger solar minimum in effect, we see a downward trend in global temperature.

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confi ... d-of-2021/


uah-global-1995to202111-w-co2-overlay.png

climate change that normally happens in hundreds of thousands of years instead is now happening in decades means one thing to me. It is also worth noting that weather folks and climate researchers are not the same thing and those who think they are is not worth my time.

Was someone talking about weather?

Seriously? Haven’t heard anything that person all year, so far. Well, 100,000 years gives you an ice age cycle. 2km thick ice covering 95% of Canada. What so drastic in the last few decades compares???? Climate changes naturally. You have no clue as does anyone what is natural change or not, just guesses and extremely poor, and exaggerated models. Mankind has not studied climate long enough to understand it, and has too short a period of accurate measurements. The last 10,000 years have seen much hotter temperatures than today, and much higher sea levels by 5 to 15 feet, all natural.

Not worth YOUR time? I find that statement ultimately ironic.

[foenix]

If that's the case please show some data, besides a blogger's personal opinion that says that the world wide coral population is at an all time high in 2021 because all I saw were articles like this.....

Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2221004747

Decade of climate breakdown saw 14 per cent of coral reefs vanish

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/10/1102242

The Sixth Status of Corals of the World: 2020 Report

https://gcrmn.net/2020-report/

There is no climate breakdown. That is silly hyperbole. Scientists are more than 'bloggers'. That is silly.

I never was speaking of world-wide coral, I was speaking of the Great Barrier reef. You've already seen the government data numerous times. If you don't believe measured government data, then explain why. The graph supplied by Dr. Peter Ridd averaged those three areas from 1985 to today. It is obvious looking at it.


record-coral-gbr.png


There is a lot more to coral health than you know. Certainly colonies will go through flux and stress but always recover and adapt to continually changing ocean conditions and cloud cover. Bleached coral is not dead coral.

We've already gone over the fabricated "record coral growth" just for a section of the GBR. Ridd eyeballed the three coral regrowth graphs and came up with that pitiful graph that's being presented here. There was no record growth....couple of areas might have got up to what it used to be but they were of the fast growth don't last variety of the coral.....not healthy at all.

AAP FactCheck averaged figures for 10 years of readings starting with 1986 and ending with 1995, and for 2011 to 2020. On average, coral cover across the entire reef was around five percentage points lower in the 2011-20 period than in 1986-95, declining from 21.6 per cent to 16.6 per cent – or a 23.2 per cent decrease.

Applying a linear trend line to the figures to iron out annual fluctuations showed an overall decline in coral cover since the survey began (see chart).

Average coral cover over the latest decade was also lower than during 2001-10, when it averaged 17.9 per cent, while the average for the entire 35-year reporting period was 19.2 per cent.

Dr Ridd said the decline in averages was likely not statistically significant, but that “there may be a loss of coral on the GBR but not halving” as an earlier study suggested.

He said comparing the past decade with the 1980s was also difficult due to the enormous loss of coral following Cyclone Hamish in 2009, which tracked along the reef.

“Coral cover fluctuates massively,” Dr Ridd said. “If one was statistically ignorant, one could force almost any result one wants from the data. For example you could say the coral cover on the reef has increased by 50 per cent since 2011/12.”

However, it could be argued that Dr Ridd made similar comparisons in his column when he argued that there had been essentially no change in reef cover since the 1980s.

An AIMS spokesperson said because the survey involved a large number of reefs across the length of the barrier a detected change in cover of 10 percentage points or more was significant.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/has-th ... the-1980s/

[foenix]

I see what you're getting at, it's the same technique whatsupwiththat uses to mislead in that y'all are looking at very small trends that are opposite to the greater long term trend, like when you say the Greenland ice shelf is growing. Yeah it's true in some subsequent years the ice or the temperature is going the opposite direction to the overall long term trend but that doesn't mean either the Greenland ice shelf is growing or that the earth surface temperature is decreasing LONG TERM....

LONG TERM trends are longer than what we have accurate data for, and can be hundreds or thousands of years for some cycles. Meteorologists typically define climate using 30 year periods. So our current 30 year period ending 2021 statistically shows no warming. So if you overlay CO2 since 1990 with temperature, you wouldn't think CO2 is doing anything and much of the effect is due to El Nino. Now with La Nina strengthening, and a stronger solar minimum in effect, we see a downward trend in global temperature.

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

https://rclutz.com/2022/01/12/uah-confi ... d-of-2021/


uah-global-1995to202111-w-co2-overlay.png

Let's have a refresher.....

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, from which temperature may be inferred.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have obtained different temperature data (see Microwave Sounding Unit temperature measurements). Among these groups are Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The satellite series is not fully homogeneous - it is constructed from a series of satellites starting with the 1978 TIROS-N, where different satellites had similar but not identical instrumentation. The sensors deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for satellite drift and orbital decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satel ... re_dataset

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-atmosp ... -wrong.htm

Here's another.....

November 2011 marked the 33rd year of atmospheric temperature measurements from satellite instruments. Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature record. Unfortunately, they marked this anniversary with a press release propagating much of the same misinformation about global climate change as they have throughout their careers at UAH. Spencer and Christy not only made a number of misleading statements in the UAH press release and in subsequent blog posts about it, they also ignored a body of scientific literature that contradicts their views on global climate change.

The press release starts off with a rather subjective and unsupported claim by John Christy:

"While 0.45 degrees C of warming is noticeable in climate terms, it isn’t obvious that it represents an impending disaster"

This statement is true, but misleading. By itself, 0.45°C warming of the lower atmosphere does not obviously represent an impending disaster. Add the fact that this warming occurred over a period of just 33 years, and the data becomes rather more alarming. Add the fact that this warming was predominantly caused by greenhouse gas emissions (more on this later) which continue to accelerate with no end in sight, and it becomes more alarming yet.

What Christy has done here is take a number out of context and present it in a way which makes it sound benign. We're not worried about the ~0.5°C over the past 30 years. We're worried about the 4°C to come over the next century if we continue on our current emissions path (Figure 1). And that undoubtedly would represent an impending disaster.

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-misrep ... part1.html

......and this here....

2021 is now the 8th warmest year on record. Hardly worth mentioning.

It's worth mentioning because

Nineteen of the hottest years have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998, which was helped by a very strong El Niño. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/gl ... mperature/