Climate Change Mega Thread

[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.

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.

[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

c.jpg

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

e.PNG

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

[captkirkcanada]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... l-chevron/



In the flatness of the southern half of Crane County, where a clump of mesquite trees can count as a landmark, you can see a new hundred-foot column of salt water from five, maybe ten miles away. It shoots into the air under extraordinary pressure, as if someone had aimed a fire hydrant straight at the sky. Beginning on New Year’s Eve or in the early hours of 2022, an estimated 25,000 barrels of briny water has emerged from the earth with a dull roar each day, turning the surrounding West Texas landscape white with salt and other minerals.

Even so, as is often the case in the Permian Basin, what’s happening above ground is far less interesting than what the hell is going on underground. “I’ve never seen anything like that in West Texas,” says Bruce K. Darling, a former exploration geologist for Pennzoil who is now a hydrogeology consultant in Austin. “That’s definitely not natural pressure.”


This is the future for north east BC

[Babba_not_Gump]

It's the end of the world as we know it....

[77TA]

I can't wait till I can grow palm trees around my patio. Please buy more electric cars to help speed this up thanks.

[Jlabute]

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-polit ... l-chevron/



In the flatness of the southern half of Crane County, where a clump of mesquite trees can count as a landmark, you can see a new hundred-foot column of salt water from five, maybe ten miles away. It shoots into the air under extraordinary pressure, as if someone had aimed a fire hydrant straight at the sky. Beginning on New Year’s Eve or in the early hours of 2022, an estimated 25,000 barrels of briny water has emerged from the earth with a dull roar each day, turning the surrounding West Texas landscape white with salt and other minerals.

Even so, as is often the case in the Permian Basin, what’s happening above ground is far less interesting than what the hell is going on underground. “I’ve never seen anything like that in West Texas,” says Bruce K. Darling, a former exploration geologist for Pennzoil who is now a hydrogeology consultant in Austin. “That’s definitely not natural pressure.”


This is the future for north east BC

?? WTH. Seriously? This is off topic from climate. Completely inconsequential too.

What is happening above ground?

04AD1A8F-843C-49F9-8D67-ABF319CE5233.jpeg

[captkirkcanada]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is approaching a level not seen in 15m years and perhaps never previously experienced by a hominoid, according to the authors of a study.

At pre-lockdown rates of increase, within five years atmospheric CO2 will pass 427 parts per million, which was the probable peak of the mid-Pliocene warming period 3.3m years ago, when temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.

But it seems we must now go much further back to see what’s ahead.

“A striking result we’ve found is that the warmest part of the Pliocene had between 380 and 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere,” one of the co-authors Thomas Chalk, said. “This is similar to today’s value of around 415 parts per million, showing that we are already at levels that in the past were associated with temperature and sea-level significantly higher than today.”

“Currently, our CO2 levels are rising at about 2.5 ppm per year, meaning that by 2025 we will have exceeded anything seen in the last 3.3 million years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

[Jlabute]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is approaching a level not seen in 15m years and perhaps never previously experienced by a hominoid, according to the authors of a study.

At pre-lockdown rates of increase, within five years atmospheric CO2 will pass 427 parts per million, which was the probable peak of the mid-Pliocene warming period 3.3m years ago, when temperatures were 3C to 4C hotter and sea levels were 20 metres higher than today.

But it seems we must now go much further back to see what’s ahead.

“A striking result we’ve found is that the warmest part of the Pliocene had between 380 and 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere,” one of the co-authors Thomas Chalk, said. “This is similar to today’s value of around 415 parts per million, showing that we are already at levels that in the past were associated with temperature and sea-level significantly higher than today.”

“Currently, our CO2 levels are rising at about 2.5 ppm per year, meaning that by 2025 we will have exceeded anything seen in the last 3.3 million years.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

[foenix]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... dApp_Other


Doesn't sound fun at all

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

Except that occurred over thousands of years not hundreds.

[Jlabute]

It is not fun, but, only to you, LOL.

So? We have also had much higher temperatures and higher sea levels just 7000 years ago, with less CO2. CO2 could likely mean nothing.

Except that occurred over thousands of years not hundreds.

So? Are we currently in a warm period? How long will it last? There is nothing unusual about temperatures over the last 100 years. Sea level rise is not accelerating and is 5 to 15 feet lower than 7000 years ago. CO2 did not do it.

[Jlabute]

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


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.

......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

2014 to 2016 was also a strong long lasting El Nino. When climate is warming, which isn't a bad thing, all recent years will be the warmest, LOL. Be glad the globe is not cooling, and the globe will never be static. Unfortunately the horrible warming places 2021 in 8th spot with doesn't make it sound like an emergency.

You're really stuck on bad-skeptical science I see (John Cook - the guy you always quote that dresses up in Nazi uniforms. Like Trudeau always doing black-face)

Skeptical Science site is far from skeptical, and the author is a cartoonist by trade.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/0 ... ience.html

We all know the issues with UAH6 and ALL THE OTHER temperature data sets. At least with UAH, we know the issues and make adjustments. UAH is accurate, plus it measures the entire globe, unlike GISS that has a limited set of thermometers and many of the data collection sites have issues.

Do you know all the adjustments that have been done to GISS? Without the adjustments the raw data shows very little warming if at all. GISS tends to run hotter today, but not in the past. Even GISS shows no correlation with CO2.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/ ... justments/

MSU UAH GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 AndCO2 NEW.gif

GISS GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2 NEW.gif

AllCompared GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2.gif

[captkirkcanada]

while russia an west play war games , china is securing it lead in the energy wars.