Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season 2021

[Gray-Wolf]

On 09/09/2021 at 07:13, The Future said:

I guess volume is the truest measure of how much sea ice there is.  A small increase this year.

I have to wonder if the wildfire smoke, from so early in the melt season and penetrating so far into the Siberian side of the basin?, scattered some of the incoming Solar leading to more retention?

 

If so we have a number of years of such in front of us I fear!

[Geordiesnow]

7 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

I have to wonder if the wildfire smoke, from so early in the melt season and penetrating so far into the Siberian side of the basin?, scattered some of the incoming Solar leading to more retention?

 

If so we have a number of years of such in front of us I fear!

I thought the wildfire season started slowly over Siberia? It just seemed too me June really give all the momentum but from July onwards, it turned alot cloudier and where there was multi year ice the weather stayed quite cool hence the Chukchi sea remained just below average for most of the summer. 

Sadly right near the end, the ice is giving up the ghost on the pacific side, its certainly not like 2013 that is for sure. I do think refreeze across the Beaufort and Chukchi could be quite rapid though given melt is quite recent but weather has to play ball on that though. 

[knocker]

Arctic sea ice has reached its annual minimum for 2021, clocking in at the 12th lowest on record, according to provisional data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC). 

While this is the largest summer minimum since 2014, the NSIDC notes that the amount of multi-year sea ice this year is “one of the lowest levels in the ice age record”.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum-in-2021-is-12th-lowest-on-record?utm_content=buffer85dfc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[ANYWEATHER]

Plenty of sea ice this year ,it's got more coverage than 40 years ago. .....!

[Derecho]

On 26/09/2021 at 17:34, ANYWEATHER said:

Plenty of sea ice this year ,it's got more coverage than 40 years ago. .....!

The graph you have posted is only for the western Arctic, a small area. The full basin, along with volume and multi-year ice gives a far better reflection.

Instead of trying to come up with an argument you are now making false claims (such as 40C in Worcestershire in the 1930s  ) or cherry picking the data and coming up with conclusions that are intentionally wrong to mislead people. Climate change denialism slumping to new lows.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Mucka]

While I agree that is cherrypicked data I find the protestations it a bit rich given "cherry picked data" is exactly what the "AGW" narrative relies upon.
Using cherrypicked data that represents around 0.00005% of Earths life giving climate history in fact.

For over 90% of Earth's 500+ million years of life giving history Co2 has not just been higher than now, it has been anything from a lot higher to massively higher and very rarely lower.
Even 20 times higher for tens of millions of years and the earth was green and temperate, no runaway warming. That alone debunks the ridiculous idea that a few decades of a tiny shift in the carbon cycle (because that is literally what man putting more Co2 in the atmosphere is) for a few decades has tipped Earth climate over the edge.

We have had ice ages when Co2 was 3 to 4 times higher than now. We have had the climate cool to the extent there is global glaciation with Co2 twice as high as now.
There is no correlation on the geological scale (without cherry-picking) that makes Co2 the main driver of climate change. Indeed there is much better correlation with solar radiation and cycles.
But apparently we must ignore all facts that contradict the narrative, because seemingly we now live in a society of cult, where critical and independent thought are vilified where they dare expose this cult to "inconvenient truths".

"What are your qualifications?" they cry, "follow the experts!"
Like Al Gore a politician who has done rather well promoting AGW propaganda?

Like a school child (definitely not groomed to propagandise children globally) who was naturally invited to read a script that demanded policies they had already written up in Un Agenda 21 and 2030 because she wrote an essay at school. And of course she was pronounced as the second coming and publicised globally by our critical and oh so very independent media.

Like UN Secretary General Guterres?
"The Earth is on fire" "The  Earth is choking"
Pure science, definitely not baseless emotive propaganda, and his calls for "global solidarity" are certainly not about promoting global governance.

"No, no the climate scientists stupid!"  They shouted.

Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University "Sea ice expert" 2012 then?
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates,” he added.

Well this new ice-free Arctic is now 2035, always just far enough out in the future to allow for the policies to be introduced based on the fear the propaganda  it invokes and to indoctrinate a new generation.
There is no way the arctic will be ice free in 2035 but that is what is peddled as "science". Come 2035 it will be, "no sea ice by 2050 experts predict!"

USGS then?

"Glacier National Park glaciers will be gone by 2020." They have just had to remove the signs that proclaimed this to be true since the prediction. Not sure why though - even though the glaciers are still there it is the science that they melted back in 2020 so it must be true.

We have had predictions of cities being under water due to sea level rises of 7 foot plus. We have been told of mass starvation (Not a new doom prophecy by "experts" by any means.) We have been told at various times since 2000 we will never see snow again hare in Britain.
I have read articles on the BBC stating experts say migrating birds wing spans have increased due to global warming and a few years later the same BBC reporting that experts say migrating bird wingspans were shortened because of global warming. Which "expert" do I trust?

Every dire prediction made on climate change that has passed its sell-by date has so far been proved wrong. Not a great record or reason to "trust the science"

The climate models are every bit as skewed and only their to produce the results the agenda demands, just as we have seen with  the pandemic models, always wrong, always massively inflating the issue.
In fact there are clear parallels between ICPP reports with the admitted PysOps and deliberate disinformation put out by Sage to drive lockdown pandemic policy and other nefarious pseudoscience to promote totalitarian policies all of which coincidentally made the richest much richer and more powerful and the poor much poorer and less independent and we haven't even started with the real price hikes and tax rises that will disappear into the black hole of debt manufactured by borrowing to pay for these brain-dead policies which have, after nearly two years, had zero positive impact on mortality or ending the pandemic. Perhaps another parallel there since no matter how much we sacrifice and cut Co2 emissions they tell us the Earth is still ending and when we hit zero emissions does anyone actually think there will be announcement the Earth has been saved?

The propaganda has already been branched out so that policy must affect every aspect of our lives, always paying more for less and giving up our freedoms.
No longer is it just Co2 that is the big bad. It is Everything from that steak useless eaters dare have (eat bugs scum) to eating fruit to the greatest sin of all, taking a holiday. Of course the elite who tell you all this hop around on their private island, billion dollar mansions and private jets and luxury yachts because they are not useless eaters. this is not a form of elitism or neo feudalism, it is science. After all just handful of people own 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth so even though they live in opulence and have a carbon footprint 100 thousand times that of the serf, erm I mean public, it is still negligible compared to the masses.
You are the problem not them.

That is why the richest man in the world has bought farmland across the US at a record rate and over a year has become the largest farmland owner in the US, because he wants to make sure you are well fed and safe and doesn't want a monopoly on food production for nefarious reasons - such a philanthropist.
How do I know he is a philanthropist and not an evil megalomaniac with a history of wrongdoing and monopolisation with an unhealthy side interest in eugenics and euthanasia despite all those things being recorded history?
Because the BBC, he "donates" many millions to, announce him as such in every sycophantic article they write promoting his humanitarian ideas!

Climate change is real, it always was but it is not being driven by man releasing Co2 in the atmosphere.

Co2 is a trace gas that makes up less than 0.04% of atmosphere. man made Co2 is a tiny fraction of that, around 0.001% of atmosphere at most. Britain accounts for less than 1% of global Co2 so around 0.00001% of atmosphere. That is 1 part in 10 million! Imagine ten million ball bearings in a massive tank and one painted red to represent the manmade Co2 and explaining to children that is responsible for the worlds end? Must be a reason they don't do that? Perhaps because "the science" tells me that if we do not make that zero within a few years we will  have a climate apocalypse?  And so there are grown adults sat on motorways stopping ordinary people going about their business so that they can feed their kids who actually believe this. Funny how they are all retired middle class on nice pensions who live in the countryside and pat each other on the back over dinner and a glass of Chateauneuf-Du-Pape on how they are saving the planet from those nasty working class types.

There are many greenhouse gasses much more powerful than Co2, not least SF6 (one thousands times more-so) used in the production of windfarms and yes others that are manmade. they are worth looking into if the rises in atmosphere exceed historical norms, that would be scientific. 
The climate warms and the climate cools, with or without man, and has done so from the beginning with historical rapid rises in temperature and rapid cooling at times. 
We should be glad the climate scientists predictions of a new ice age bringing doom by 2,000 were equally wrong.
Ecology moves with climate, some species thrive, some suffer but that is the norm.

How is it that in this tiny window of time that the Earth coincidentally has its optimum climate? Who decides what the optimum climate is?
Why is X amount of polar ice required when it is the climatic norm for there to be no polar ice?
Who is man to say, this is how the climate must always be? And given climate is naturally always in constant flux then bioengineering the climate to remain within certain parameters is the true manmade climate change and surely dangerous? Or is that just more undesirable logic?

We need to do away with this idea of AGW. It is nonsensical, unscientific and deliberately anti human.
We should just concentrate on manmade pollution and how we can better manage our civilisation to be less wasteful  and more environmentally friendly etc But it must be done where not only the poor suffer and the wealthiest get ever wealthier which is factually what so called climate change policies have done thus far. Imagine being a progenitor of the end of the world scenario like the UN secretary general and elite yet endorsing policies that you knew would increase global Co2 emissions? how does that work exactly that you leave China exempt 9to be nice) yet think the "world is on fire" tot eh extent Western nations must hit zero emissions yesterday or we all die? Is that not questionable? And yes of course leaving China exempt lead to the financiers and corporations upping sticks to China to take advantage of this huge competitive edge over their crippled competition with the added boon of child labour! The fact these are the same people and corporations who lecture us on climate change and tell us what amazing ambassadors they are for social justice etc is not worth worrying your pretty little head about. And don't dare question the fact that this policy made them trillions, created China's economic boom and increased global Co2 emissions greatly as a consequence for some years because for every clean burning plant the West was shutting down and mothballing China was building ten new dirty coal plants to keep up with energy demands less you be called a "conspiracy theorist" or "climate denier"

If a cleaner more equitable world were the motive of the people behind the AGW narrative I would at last see that fear propaganda was being used for some greater good even though it is totally unethical and undermines the idea of it being philanthropic. 
That was the premise for the lies and propaganda of Sage, "they were just trying to scare people into doing the right thing" but that was every bit as disingenuous.
The fear propaganda and data manipulation is all about pushing a neo feudalistic agenda of a technocratic global governance.
It is to have people embrace their servitude in the knowledge they are good people and saving the planet or mankind while worshipping the elite as their saviours.
It is a cult and like every cult it will not listen to reason for they are the chosen ones and the naysayers the heretics.

I don't mind that people don't believe there is an agenda, even though it is outlined as an Agenda by the UN or that wealthiest people in the world or the institutions, NGO's, "think tanks" they fund actually have any bearing on governmental policy or the media they fund any bearing on how and what the media report or who their platforms censor and what information is filtered is only that which contradicts the narratives, but I do mind when people tell me Anthropogenic Global Warming is not only scientific but indisputable. It is anything but.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Mucka

[marksp]

Thank you for that response. I saw the previous post  and just sighed deeply and resided myself to hysterical GW posts, yours has restored some balance.

I always smile at name of the largest island on the planet, very ironic. 

you have put forward some well reasoned statements that bring some balance to the man made warming theory (thats the issue its just a theory)

Long live our star the giver of life and the main controller of our planets atmosphere, no matter what we do.

 

(if my post is of base please remove if you want) enough said

[Methuselah]

41 minutes ago, Mucka said:

While I agree that is cherrypicked data I find the protestations it a bit rich given "cherry picked data" is exactly what the "AGW" narrative relies upon.
Using cherrypicked data that represents around 0.00005% of Earths life giving climate history in fact.

For over 90% of Earth's 500+ million years of life giving history Co2 has not just been higher than now, it has been anything from a lot higher to massively higher and very rarely lower.
Even 20 times higher for tens of millions of years and the earth was green and temperate, no runaway warming. That alone debunks the ridiculous idea that a few decades of a tiny shift in the carbon cycle (because that is literally what man putting more Co2 in the atmosphere is) for a few decades has tipped Earth climate over the edge.

We have had ice ages when Co2 was 3 to 4 times higher than now. We have had the climate cool to the extent there is global glaciation with Co2 twice as high as now.
There is no correlation on the geological scale (without cherry-picking) that makes Co2 the main driver of climate change. Indeed there is much better correlation with solar radiation and cycles.
But apparently we must ignore all facts that contradict the narrative, because seemingly we now live in a society of cult, where critical and independent thought are vilified where they dare expose this cult to "inconvenient truths".

"What are your qualifications?" they cry, "follow the experts!"
Like Al Gore a politician who has done rather well promoting AGW propaganda?

Like a school child (definitely not groomed to propagandise children globally) who was naturally invited to read a script that demanded policies they had already written up in Un Agenda 21 and 2030 because she wrote an essay at school. And of course she was pronounced as the second coming and publicised globally by our critical and oh so very independent media.

Like UN Secretary General Guterres?
"The Earth is on fire" "The  Earth is choking"
Pure science, definitely not baseless emotive propaganda, and his calls for "global solidarity" are certainly not about promoting global governance.

"No, no the climate scientists stupid!"  They shouted.

Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University "Sea ice expert" 2012 then?
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates,” he added.

Well this new ice-free Arctic is now 2035, always just far enough out in the future to allow for the policies to be introduced based on the fear the propaganda  it invokes and to indoctrinate a new generation.
There is no way the arctic will be ice free in 2035 but that is what is peddled as "science". Come 2035 it will be, "no sea ice by 2050 experts predict!"

USGS then?

"Glacier National Park glaciers will be gone by 2020." They have just had to remove the signs that proclaimed this to be true since the prediction. Not sure why though - even though the glaciers are still there it is the science that they melted back in 2020 so it must be true.

We have had predictions of cities being under water due to sea level rises of 7 foot plus. We have been told of mass starvation (Not a new doom prophecy by "experts" by any means.) We have been told at various times since 2000 we will never see snow again hare in Britain.
I have read articles on the BBC stating experts say migrating birds wing spans have increased due to global warming and a few years later the same BBC reporting that experts say migrating bird wingspans were shortened because of global warming. Which "expert" do I trust?

Every dire prediction made on climate change that has passed its sell-by date has so far been proved wrong. Not a great record or reason to "trust the science"

The climate models are every bit as skewed and only their to produce the results the agenda demands, just as we have seen with  the pandemic models, always wrong, always massively inflating the issue.
In fact there are clear parallels between ICPP reports with the admitted PysOps and deliberate disinformation put out by Sage to drive lockdown pandemic policy and other nefarious pseudoscience to promote totalitarian policies all of which coincidentally made the richest much richer and more powerful and the poor much poorer and less independent and we haven't even started with the real price hikes and tax rises that will disappear into the black hole of debt manufactured by borrowing to pay for these brain-dead policies which have, after nearly two years, had zero positive impact on mortality or ending the pandemic. Perhaps another parallel there since no matter how much we sacrifice and cut Co2 emissions they tell us the Earth is still ending and when we hit zero emissions does anyone actually think there will be announcement the Earth has been saved?

The propaganda has already been branched out so that policy must affect every aspect of our lives, always paying more for less and giving up our freedoms.
No longer is it just Co2 that is the big bad. It is Everything from that steak useless eaters dare have (eat bugs scum) to eating fruit to the greatest sin of all, taking a holiday. Of course the elite who tell you all this hop around on their private island, billion dollar mansions and private jets and luxury yachts because they are not useless eaters. this is not a form of elitism or neo feudalism, it is science. After all just handful of people own 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth so even though they live in opulence and have a carbon footprint 100 thousand times that of the serf, erm I mean public, it is still negligible compared to the masses.
You are the problem not them.

That is why the richest man in the world has bought farmland across the US at a record rate and over a year has become the largest farmland owner in the US, because he wants to make sure you are well fed and safe and doesn't want a monopoly on food production for nefarious reasons - such a philanthropist.
How do I know he is a philanthropist and not an evil megalomaniac with a history of wrongdoing and monopolisation with an unhealthy side interest in eugenics and euthanasia despite all those things being recorded history?
Because the BBC, he "donates" many millions to, announce him as such in every sycophantic article they write promoting his humanitarian ideas!

Climate change is real, it always was but it is not being driven by man releasing Co2 in the atmosphere.

Co2 is a trace gas that makes up less than 0.04% of atmosphere. man made Co2 is a tiny fraction of that, around 0.001% of atmosphere at most. Britain accounts for less than 1% of global Co2 so around 0.00001% of atmosphere. That is 1 part in 10 million! Imagine ten million ball bearings in a massive tank and one painted red to represent the manmade Co2 and explaining to children that is responsible for the worlds end? Must be a reason they don't do that? Perhaps because "the science" tells me that if we do not make that zero within a few years we will  have a climate apocalypse?  And so there are grown adults sat on motorways stopping ordinary people going about their business so that they can feed their kids who actually believe this. Funny how they are all retired middle class on nice pensions who live in the countryside and pat each other on the back over dinner and a glass of Chateauneuf-Du-Pape on how they are saving the planet from those nasty working class types.

There are many greenhouse gasses much more powerful than Co2, not least SF6 (one thousands times more-so) used in the production of windfarms and yes others that are manmade. they are worth looking into if the rises in atmosphere exceed historical norms, that would be scientific. 
The climate warms and the climate cools, with or without man, and has done so from the beginning with historical rapid rises in temperature and rapid cooling at times. 
We should be glad the climate scientists predictions of a new ice age bringing doom by 2,000 were equally wrong.
Ecology moves with climate, some species thrive, some suffer but that is the norm.

How is it that in this tiny window of time that the Earth coincidentally has its optimum climate? Who decides what the optimum climate is?
Why is X amount of polar ice required when it is the climatic norm for there to be no polar ice?
Who is man to say, this is how the climate must always be? And given climate is naturally always in constant flux then bioengineering the climate to remain within certain parameters is the true manmade climate change and surely dangerous? Or is that just more undesirable logic?

We need to do away with this idea of AGW. It is nonsensical, unscientific and deliberately anti human.
We should just concentrate on manmade pollution and how we can better manage our civilisation to be less wasteful  and more environmentally friendly etc But it must be done where not only the poor suffer and the wealthiest get ever wealthier which is factually what so called climate change policies have done thus far. Imagine being a progenitor of the end of the world scenario like the UN secretary general and elite yet endorsing policies that you knew would increase global Co2 emissions? how does that work exactly that you leave China exempt 9to be nice) yet think the "world is on fire" tot eh extent Western nations must hit zero emissions yesterday or we all die? Is that not questionable? And yes of course leaving China exempt lead to the financiers and corporations upping sticks to China to take advantage of this huge competitive edge over their crippled competition with the added boon of child labour! The fact these are the same people and corporations who lecture us on climate change and tell us what amazing ambassadors they are for social justice etc is not worth worrying your pretty little head about. And don't dare question the fact that this policy made them trillions, created China's economic boom and increased global Co2 emissions greatly as a consequence for some years because for every clean burning plant the West was shutting down and mothballing China was building ten new dirty coal plants to keep up with energy demands less you be called a "conspiracy theorist" or "climate denier"

If a cleaner more equitable world were the motive of the people behind the AGW narrative I would at last see that fear propaganda was being used for some greater good even though it is totally unethical and undermines the idea of it being philanthropic. 
That was the premise for the lies and propaganda of Sage, "they were just trying to scare people into doing the right thing" but that was every bit as disingenuous.
The fear propaganda and data manipulation is all about pushing a neo feudalistic agenda of a technocratic global governance.
It is to have people embrace their servitude in the knowledge they are good people and saving the planet or mankind while worshipping the elite as their saviours.
It is a cult and like every cult it will not listen to reason for they are the chosen ones and the naysayers the heretics.

I don't mind that people don't believe there is an agenda, even though it is outlined as an Agenda by the UN or that wealthiest people in the world or the institutions, NGO's, "think tanks" they fund actually have any bearing on governmental policy or the media they fund any bearing on how and what the media report or who their platforms censor and what information is filtered is only that which contradicts the narratives, but I do mind when people tell me Anthropogenic Global Warming is not only scientific but indisputable. It is anything but.

Yawn! A little less hysterics and a whole lot more science, please?

[Saint coolio]

*if* the Gulf Stream had partially shut down, what would a typical North Atlantic pressure chart look like in autumn?

[ANYWEATHER]

17 hours ago, Mucka said:

While I agree that is cherrypicked data I find the protestations it a bit rich given "cherry picked data" is exactly what the "AGW" narrative relies upon.
Using cherrypicked data that represents around 0.00005% of Earths life giving climate history in fact.

For over 90% of Earth's 500+ million years of life giving history Co2 has not just been higher than now, it has been anything from a lot higher to massively higher and very rarely lower.
Even 20 times higher for tens of millions of years and the earth was green and temperate, no runaway warming. That alone debunks the ridiculous idea that a few decades of a tiny shift in the carbon cycle (because that is literally what man putting more Co2 in the atmosphere is) for a few decades has tipped Earth climate over the edge.

We have had ice ages when Co2 was 3 to 4 times higher than now. We have had the climate cool to the extent there is global glaciation with Co2 twice as high as now.
There is no correlation on the geological scale (without cherry-picking) that makes Co2 the main driver of climate change. Indeed there is much better correlation with solar radiation and cycles.
But apparently we must ignore all facts that contradict the narrative, because seemingly we now live in a society of cult, where critical and independent thought are vilified where they dare expose this cult to "inconvenient truths".

"What are your qualifications?" they cry, "follow the experts!"
Like Al Gore a politician who has done rather well promoting AGW propaganda?

Like a school child (definitely not groomed to propagandise children globally) who was naturally invited to read a script that demanded policies they had already written up in Un Agenda 21 and 2030 because she wrote an essay at school. And of course she was pronounced as the second coming and publicised globally by our critical and oh so very independent media.

Like UN Secretary General Guterres?
"The Earth is on fire" "The  Earth is choking"
Pure science, definitely not baseless emotive propaganda, and his calls for "global solidarity" are certainly not about promoting global governance.

"No, no the climate scientists stupid!"  They shouted.

Prof Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University "Sea ice expert" 2012 then?
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates,” he added.

Well this new ice-free Arctic is now 2035, always just far enough out in the future to allow for the policies to be introduced based on the fear the propaganda  it invokes and to indoctrinate a new generation.
There is no way the arctic will be ice free in 2035 but that is what is peddled as "science". Come 2035 it will be, "no sea ice by 2050 experts predict!"

USGS then?

"Glacier National Park glaciers will be gone by 2020." They have just had to remove the signs that proclaimed this to be true since the prediction. Not sure why though - even though the glaciers are still there it is the science that they melted back in 2020 so it must be true.

We have had predictions of cities being under water due to sea level rises of 7 foot plus. We have been told of mass starvation (Not a new doom prophecy by "experts" by any means.) We have been told at various times since 2000 we will never see snow again hare in Britain.
I have read articles on the BBC stating experts say migrating birds wing spans have increased due to global warming and a few years later the same BBC reporting that experts say migrating bird wingspans were shortened because of global warming. Which "expert" do I trust?

Every dire prediction made on climate change that has passed its sell-by date has so far been proved wrong. Not a great record or reason to "trust the science"

The climate models are every bit as skewed and only their to produce the results the agenda demands, just as we have seen with  the pandemic models, always wrong, always massively inflating the issue.
In fact there are clear parallels between ICPP reports with the admitted PysOps and deliberate disinformation put out by Sage to drive lockdown pandemic policy and other nefarious pseudoscience to promote totalitarian policies all of which coincidentally made the richest much richer and more powerful and the poor much poorer and less independent and we haven't even started with the real price hikes and tax rises that will disappear into the black hole of debt manufactured by borrowing to pay for these brain-dead policies which have, after nearly two years, had zero positive impact on mortality or ending the pandemic. Perhaps another parallel there since no matter how much we sacrifice and cut Co2 emissions they tell us the Earth is still ending and when we hit zero emissions does anyone actually think there will be announcement the Earth has been saved?

The propaganda has already been branched out so that policy must affect every aspect of our lives, always paying more for less and giving up our freedoms.
No longer is it just Co2 that is the big bad. It is Everything from that steak useless eaters dare have (eat bugs scum) to eating fruit to the greatest sin of all, taking a holiday. Of course the elite who tell you all this hop around on their private island, billion dollar mansions and private jets and luxury yachts because they are not useless eaters. this is not a form of elitism or neo feudalism, it is science. After all just handful of people own 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth so even though they live in opulence and have a carbon footprint 100 thousand times that of the serf, erm I mean public, it is still negligible compared to the masses.
You are the problem not them.

That is why the richest man in the world has bought farmland across the US at a record rate and over a year has become the largest farmland owner in the US, because he wants to make sure you are well fed and safe and doesn't want a monopoly on food production for nefarious reasons - such a philanthropist.
How do I know he is a philanthropist and not an evil megalomaniac with a history of wrongdoing and monopolisation with an unhealthy side interest in eugenics and euthanasia despite all those things being recorded history?
Because the BBC, he "donates" many millions to, announce him as such in every sycophantic article they write promoting his humanitarian ideas!

Climate change is real, it always was but it is not being driven by man releasing Co2 in the atmosphere.

Co2 is a trace gas that makes up less than 0.04% of atmosphere. man made Co2 is a tiny fraction of that, around 0.001% of atmosphere at most. Britain accounts for less than 1% of global Co2 so around 0.00001% of atmosphere. That is 1 part in 10 million! Imagine ten million ball bearings in a massive tank and one painted red to represent the manmade Co2 and explaining to children that is responsible for the worlds end? Must be a reason they don't do that? Perhaps because "the science" tells me that if we do not make that zero within a few years we will  have a climate apocalypse?  And so there are grown adults sat on motorways stopping ordinary people going about their business so that they can feed their kids who actually believe this. Funny how they are all retired middle class on nice pensions who live in the countryside and pat each other on the back over dinner and a glass of Chateauneuf-Du-Pape on how they are saving the planet from those nasty working class types.

There are many greenhouse gasses much more powerful than Co2, not least SF6 (one thousands times more-so) used in the production of windfarms and yes others that are manmade. they are worth looking into if the rises in atmosphere exceed historical norms, that would be scientific. 
The climate warms and the climate cools, with or without man, and has done so from the beginning with historical rapid rises in temperature and rapid cooling at times. 
We should be glad the climate scientists predictions of a new ice age bringing doom by 2,000 were equally wrong.
Ecology moves with climate, some species thrive, some suffer but that is the norm.

How is it that in this tiny window of time that the Earth coincidentally has its optimum climate? Who decides what the optimum climate is?
Why is X amount of polar ice required when it is the climatic norm for there to be no polar ice?
Who is man to say, this is how the climate must always be? And given climate is naturally always in constant flux then bioengineering the climate to remain within certain parameters is the true manmade climate change and surely dangerous? Or is that just more undesirable logic?

We need to do away with this idea of AGW. It is nonsensical, unscientific and deliberately anti human.
We should just concentrate on manmade pollution and how we can better manage our civilisation to be less wasteful  and more environmentally friendly etc But it must be done where not only the poor suffer and the wealthiest get ever wealthier which is factually what so called climate change policies have done thus far. Imagine being a progenitor of the end of the world scenario like the UN secretary general and elite yet endorsing policies that you knew would increase global Co2 emissions? how does that work exactly that you leave China exempt 9to be nice) yet think the "world is on fire" tot eh extent Western nations must hit zero emissions yesterday or we all die? Is that not questionable? And yes of course leaving China exempt lead to the financiers and corporations upping sticks to China to take advantage of this huge competitive edge over their crippled competition with the added boon of child labour! The fact these are the same people and corporations who lecture us on climate change and tell us what amazing ambassadors they are for social justice etc is not worth worrying your pretty little head about. And don't dare question the fact that this policy made them trillions, created China's economic boom and increased global Co2 emissions greatly as a consequence for some years because for every clean burning plant the West was shutting down and mothballing China was building ten new dirty coal plants to keep up with energy demands less you be called a "conspiracy theorist" or "climate denier"

If a cleaner more equitable world were the motive of the people behind the AGW narrative I would at last see that fear propaganda was being used for some greater good even though it is totally unethical and undermines the idea of it being philanthropic. 
That was the premise for the lies and propaganda of Sage, "they were just trying to scare people into doing the right thing" but that was every bit as disingenuous.
The fear propaganda and data manipulation is all about pushing a neo feudalistic agenda of a technocratic global governance.
It is to have people embrace their servitude in the knowledge they are good people and saving the planet or mankind while worshipping the elite as their saviours.
It is a cult and like every cult it will not listen to reason for they are the chosen ones and the naysayers the heretics.

I don't mind that people don't believe there is an agenda, even though it is outlined as an Agenda by the UN or that wealthiest people in the world or the institutions, NGO's, "think tanks" they fund actually have any bearing on governmental policy or the media they fund any bearing on how and what the media report or who their platforms censor and what information is filtered is only that which contradicts the narratives, but I do mind when people tell me Anthropogenic Global Warming is not only scientific but indisputable. It is anything but.

Well said and very true. The agenda has been set many many times over ,the goal posts keep getting moved further back, and yet the weak and gullible are taken in. ...........

[Methuselah]

14 minutes ago, ANYWEATHER said:

Well said and very true. The agenda has been set many many times over ,the goal posts keep getting moved further back, and yet the weak and gullible are taken in. ...........

Well, the 'weak and the gullible' are certainly taken-in by Piers Corbyn's gibberish!

[Optimus Prime]

On 01/10/2021 at 12:01, ANYWEATHER said:

Well said and very true. The agenda has been set many many times over ,the goal posts keep getting moved further back, and yet the weak and gullible are taken in. ...........

You might want to read up on 'motivated reasoning'. It's a classic mental condition most humans suffer from. It's believing what you want to be true, rather than what would be considered rational or evidence based.

[Wold Topper]

On 04/10/2021 at 20:53, Optimus Prime said:

You might want to read up on 'motivated reasoning'. It's a classic mental condition most humans suffer from. It's believing what you want to be true, rather than what would be considered rational or evidence based.

By that rational this must be applied to both (all) sides of the debate 'motivated reasoning' can't be used as a counter argument if it is used to support a narrative?

[Optimus Prime]

9 hours ago, Wold Topper said:

By that rational this must be applied to both (all) sides of the debate 'motivated reasoning' can't be used as a counter argument if it is used to support a narrative?

If that narrative is stating facts I.e humans are warming the world up far beyond any natural cycle could cause within the same time period, then no, because that's a fact and is not devised from denial.

 

[Mixer 85]

10 hours ago, Optimus Prime said:

You might want to read up on 'motivated reasoning'. It's a classic mental condition most humans suffer from. It's believing what you want to be true, rather than what would be considered rational or evidence based.

You might want to read up on ‘apocalypticism’. It’s a classic mental condition most humans suffer from. It’s believing that the end is nigh, be it from religious apocalypse to environmental collapse. It quite easily explains the endless and unsupported doomsday prophecies touted by alarmists and many media outlets.

[Airedalejoe]

On 30/09/2021 at 18:45, Mucka said:

While I agree that is cherrypicked data I find the protestations it a bit rich given "cherry picked data" is exactly what the "AGW" narrative relies upon.
Using cherrypicked data that represents around 0.00005% of Earths life giving climate history in fact.

For over 90% of Earth's 500+ million years of life giving history Co2 has not just been higher than now, it has been anything from a lot higher to massively higher and very rarely lower.
Even 20 times higher for tens of millions of years and the earth was green and temperate, no runaway warming. That alone debunks the ridiculous idea that a few decades of a tiny shift in the carbon cycle (because that is literally what man putting more Co2 in the atmosphere is) for a few decades has tipped Earth climate over the edge.

We have had ice ages when Co2 was 3 to 4 times higher than now. We have had the climate cool to the extent there is global glaciation with Co2 twice as high as now.
There is no correlation on the geological scale (without cherry-picking) that makes Co2 the main driver of climate change. Indeed there is much better correlation with solar radiation and cycles.
But apparently we must ignore all facts that contradict the narrative, because seemingly we now live in a society of cult, where critical and independent thought are vilified where they dare expose this cult to "inconvenient truths"."

Absolutely spot on.

[Methuselah]

8 minutes ago, Airedalejoe said:

Absolutely spot on.

Or, more to the point, scientifically illiterate?

[Optimus Prime]

55 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

You might want to read up on ‘apocalypticism’. It’s a classic mental condition most humans suffer from. It’s believing that the end is nigh, be it from religious apocalypse to environmental collapse. It quite easily explains the endless and unsupported doomsday prophecies touted by alarmists and many media outlets.

You're making an example of one extreme scenario and using it as prophecy, now who's sounding religious?

Almost all of the predictions, specifically James Hansen led, which predicted temperature rises predicted in the 70's to present day have more or less come to fruition. You can cherry pick data used in that analysis to refute this claim, but then you would be ignoring the ensemble mean which has been remarkably accurate and takes in to account multiple variables.

I don't believe the world will end. That is ridiculous but it's quite obvious we will not be able adapt in time to avert the displacement of billions of the world's most vulnerable.

It's always the vulnerable that suffer, that's why people like you feel they shouldn't need to worry about it. Be it not just climate change but social inequality the racist war on drugs, police brutality etc.

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Optimus Prime

[Mixer 85]

1 hour ago, Optimus Prime said:

You're making an example of one extreme scenario and using it as prophecy, now who's sounding religious?

Almost all of the predictions, specifically James Hansen led, which predicted temperature rises predicted in the 70's to present day have more or less come to fruition. You can cherry pick data used in that analysis to refute this claim, but then you would be ignoring the ensemble mean which has been remarkably accurate and takes in to account multiple variables.

I don't believe the world will end. That is ridiculous but it's quite obvious we will not be able adapt in time to avert the displacement of billions of the world's most vulnerable.

It's always the vulnerable that suffer, that's why people like you feel they shouldn't need to worry about it. Be it not just climate change but social inequality the racist war on drugs, police brutality etc.

 

First off the example I gave is human psychology and not religious. It may be adopted through religious beliefs but one mustn’t confuse one over the other. 
Secondly “people like me” is a gross categorisation of someone you don’t know. I am a conservationist at heart. I believe strongly in protecting our planet and it’s environment. I do not believe the poor and vulnerable should suffer. I believe poorer nations should be given access to cheap reliable energy derived from fossil fuels, just as we had. There is an attempt to deny this based on the so called irrefutable science. We are endlessly bombarded with these terrifying ‘predictions’ that are clearly tailored to instill fear into our young. 
Regardless of who’s right or wrong in this long running debate what bothers me the most is that science has been politicised. Any scientists who engage in the debate quickly find themselves ‘persona non grata’. Any studies that dispute  the narrative are kept out of sight. Lies and false claims are being trumpeted constantly.

I believe in the human pursuit of truth and understanding in all fields of study and sadly in the case of climate science this no longer applies. It’s turned into irate school girls berating our leaders in front of the world. Quite sad really.

[Optimus Prime]

30 minutes ago, Mixer 85 said:

First off the example I gave is human psychology and not religious. It may be adopted through religious beliefs but one mustn’t confuse one over the other. 
Secondly “people like me” is a gross categorisation of someone you don’t know. I am a conservationist at heart. I believe strongly in protecting our planet and it’s environment. I do not believe the poor and vulnerable should suffer. I believe poorer nations should be given access to cheap reliable energy derived from fossil fuels, just as we had. There is an attempt to deny this based on the so called irrefutable science. We are endlessly bombarded with these terrifying ‘predictions’ that are clearly tailored to instill fear into our young. 
Regardless of who’s right or wrong in this long running debate what bothers me the most is that science has been politicised. Any scientists who engage in the debate quickly find themselves ‘persona non grata’. Any studies that dispute  the narrative are kept out of sight. Lies and false claims are being trumpeted constantly.

I believe in the human pursuit of truth and understanding in all fields of study and sadly in the case of climate science this no longer applies. It’s turned into irate school girls berating our leaders in front of the world. Quite sad really.

Well that's cleared up a misconception I had. But can you source just a few articles demonstrating 'terrifying predictions'? Shouldn't be too difficult if we are being bombarded.

I'm talking proper scientific papers with references. Personally I don't see it as alarmist information if it's a fact.

Facts - almost half of all matter on Earth has been turned in to materials for human consumption. 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 has been released since 1850. The world has warmed by 1.2 degrees since the 80's, unprecedented in the Earth's recent history and it will exceed 1.5 very soon, Arctic Sea ice is trending downwards rapidly since the late 90's, tropical forests are retreating. Atmospheric levels of oxygen are in decline. These are indisputable facts. They are all worthy of much concern. Why should they be ignored and why is it alarmist?

Edited October 5, 2021 by Optimus Prime

[Radiating Dendrite]

I am an impartial bystander in all of this - but I do believe, as a species we should not be polluting the planet whether it causes global warming or not. We are intelligent enough to work with nature and create a future where we achieve our aims without leaving a big impact on the earth and everything else that lives upon her.

My one question - if we do reach net zero, what happens if the temperatures continue to keep rising?

[Sugarloaf80]

There is so much rigorous scientific, peer reviewed data that demonstrates that humans are causing the changes in climate we are currently seeing. I have no problem with people challenging this, that is the nature of science. However, if you do challenge it the onus on you is to come up with scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed to back up what you are saying. At the moment it seems to be the same old arguments that climate has always changed blah blah blah. Yes we know that but we are talking about why it is changing now and what impact that could have on our civilisation, as well as the natural world around us. 

[Optimus Prime]

14 minutes ago, Sugarloaf80 said:

There is so much rigorous scientific, peer reviewed data that demonstrates that humans are causing the changes in climate we are currently seeing. I have no problem with people challenging this, that is the nature of science. However, if you do challenge it the onus on you is to come up with scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed to back up what you are saying. At the moment it seems to be the same old arguments that climate has always changed blah blah blah. Yes we know that but we are talking about why it is changing now and what impact that could have on our civilisation, as well as the natural world around us. 

Well the argument that I think is so crazy and out of touch is the one where we shouldn't be instilling fear in to the young.

Naive and implausible deniability. jaffa cakes on  the future of younger generations because we were fortunate to have been born early enough to not have to deal with the sum total of it all.

The selfishness is incredible. Not wanting to give up all the crap we take for granted because we are noy willing to sacrifice it all for future generations.

Imagine if that attitude were to be applied to a disaster such as Chernobyl.

[Derecho]

5 hours ago, Radiating Dendrite said:

I am an impartial bystander in all of this - but I do believe, as a species we should not be polluting the planet whether it causes global warming or not. We are intelligent enough to work with nature and create a future where we achieve our aims without leaving a big impact on the earth and everything else that lives upon her.

My one question - if we do reach net zero, what happens if the temperatures continue to keep rising?

The way I look at it, yes I'm pretty rigorous when it comes to critiquing what is posted on here but only if something is posted to deliberately mislead by posting something that has no evidence or scientific reasoning behind it.

I find it telling that older members are more likely to deny the impacts of anthropogenic climate change given they won't face the consequences.

With regards to Muckas post above, we should actually be going through a period of global cooling because of Milankovitch cycles, so the fact that we are seeing the most rapid phase of warming since the PETM says an awful lot. We also had a grand solar maximum in 1985 and global temperatures are still increasing.

I don't want to tread upon old arguments because I can say them over and over again but people will still use these factors as a reason to deny climate change no matter how convincing the scientific evidence is.

Not everything in science is foolproof and the 2010s summer free of Arctic Sea Ice prediction was just one scientist going for an extreme option in an ensemble. If you have an 12z ensemble pack in the model output that is well below average and you pick that 1 individual run, it is going to be less likely but that doesn't detract from the overall picture. Global temperatures are increasing at a record rate due to Ghg emissions and with each decade that goes by, the arguments deniers make gets worse. Sorry but thermometers don't have a political agenda, that is just the way it is and yes the one or two researchers who have gone about UK snowless winters within the next few decades I believe are wrong.

How we go about dealing with climate change is a much more different and  complex challenge. No I don't agree with the forms of protest insulate Britain are taking part in but something needs to be done. 

The only reason why I researched climate change is because I was initially a climate change denier who was fascinated by climate but the more I studied the more I believed AGW is real. Climate deniers also act like as though debate is being completely shut off, I disagree, discussing the uncertainties is positive for science but for that discussion to work in science you need peer reviewed literature because anyone in this world can say anything without backing up their findings.

I for example could say global warming isn't real because Hull got to 40C in 1846. That is absolute rubbish but it's the kind of thing ANYWEATHER has been posting and that is what crosses the line. 

Look the answer for climate change isn't simple and predicting the future regionally is more complicated by uncertainties over what small scale weather patterns will do. However we cannot deny the fact that global temperatures are increasing due to increasing CO2 emissions. Feel free to challenge it if you like but the only effective argument is to use the literature.

Outright denial of the evidence is dangerous, we should have been at this stage with renewable 25-30 years ago but those with vested interests in fossil fuels have stifled that transition. Me? I'm just a PhD graduate who loved researching. Barely anything in it for me, I finished my PhD with 37p in my bank account.

Even disregarding warming global temperatures, we need to find more ways of reducing pollution regardless. However given the lag effect of CO2, global temperatures will still increase when we hit net zero so that emphasises the need to change course now. Unless we get a Yellowstone style volcanic eruption (and none of us want to see that), I can't see anything halting the rise in global temperatures.

A shutdown of the Gulf Stream may act as somewhat of a negative feedback but even then the underlying warming trend would still be there so I don't have much to be optimistic about.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Methuselah]

Aye, QS, and the price for Climate Change isn't the only thing us 'oldies' won't have to pay!