Climate Change Report

[AM64]

What do you see as a constraint to the methodology?

Historically speaking, picking 1901 as a starting point is a less significant than a pimple on a flea's butt.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So, your response is not to address what I said but insult me.

He’s got nothing
I don’t waste time on him anymore

 

[Mick]

Historically speaking, picking 1901 as a starting point is a less significant than a pimple on a flea's butt.

No, it's just the instrumentation from which we can compile and compare data. I suppose you would like to draw you conclusions about carbons effects on the atmosphere from ice samples.

 

[AM64]

No, it's just the instrumentation from which we can compile and compare data. I suppose you would like to draw you conclusions about carbons effects on the atmosphere from ice samples.

Nope. However extrapolating from a meaningless time span is useless. If the earth hasn't changed dramatically, how do you suppose big deposits of oil (fossil deposits) came to be in places like Saudi Arabia or Alaska or Siberia or the North Sea?

 

[Mick]

Nope. However extrapolating from a meaningless time span is useless. If the earth hasn't changed dramatically, how do you suppose big deposits of oil (fossil deposits) came to be in places like Saudi Arabia or Alaska or Siberia or the North Sea?

I don't see the last 100 years as meaningless. More relevant than the time of the dinosaur, asteroids, and increased tectonic activity millions of years ago.

 

[AM64]

I don't see the last 100 years as meaningless. More relevant than the time of the dinosaur, asteroids, and increased tectonic activity billions of years ago.

Whatever, but then it's a little tedious to explain how the earth came out of ice ages without man's support.

 

[Mick]

Whatever, but then it's a little tedious to explain how the earth came out of ice ages without man's support.

Maybe you need to look at it like: With man's influence on the atmosphere, the earth may never enter another ice age until we become almost extinct. The earth needs to cool or we will start seeing increased tectonic activity.

 

[LouderVol]

No, it's just the instrumentation from which we can compile and compare data. I suppose you would like to draw you conclusions about carbons effects on the atmosphere from ice samples.

you brought up bigger hurricanes. We call Harvey and a couple others "500 year storms". Do we have any earthly idea what a storm looked like back in 1519? heck 1719? 1819? 1919? 1949? even into the 70s or even later we had no where close to the same computer analysis and actual information on these storms we are basing trends on.

a lot of the "trends" we see talked about when it comes to the severity are plotted on lines drawn from two or three events at best. that's terrible data.

The Mayans, Incans, Hebrews, Mesoptomians, Chinese all recorded major global flood events at generally the same time, even the story of Atlantis and further ones talk about civilizations being washed away in non global floods. Mother nature has tried to swat us a time or two within our recorded history. to say what we are seeing today is the worst ever is incredibly short sighted.

 

[Mick]

you brought up bigger hurricanes. We call Harvey and a couple others "500 year storms". Do we have any earthly idea what a storm looked like back in 1519? heck 1719? 1819? 1919? 1949? even into the 70s or even later we had no where close to the same computer analysis and actual information on these storms we are basing trends on.

a lot of the "trends" we see talked about when it comes to the severity are plotted on lines drawn from two or three events at best. that's terrible data.

The Mayans, Incans, Hebrews, Mesoptomians, Chinese all recorded major global flood events at generally the same time, even the story of Atlantis and further ones talk about civilizations being washed away in non global floods. Mother nature has tried to swat us a time or two within our recorded history. to say what we are seeing today is the worst ever is incredibly short sighted.

Are you trying to measure historical severity of storms? There must have been one so bad, Noah had to build an ark for the survival of the human race.

Now if you are trying to measure carbon's effects on the atmosphere, we have plenty of data points.

 

[Roustabout]

If you saw that as an insult, this is not the place for you. If you want to articulated why the solar cycle refutes the effects of carbon on the atmosphere, I'll listen.

The sun's impact on the climate is a matter of current debate, especially as regards the less-than-expected global warming of the past 15 years. There is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the sun affects the climate, but the study suggests that direct solar energy is not the most important factor, but rather indirect effects on atmospheric circulation.

Sun's activity influences natural climate change, ice age study shows

The Carbon Cycle

Key points:

Uncertainty
The sun affects climate change

Other than that you made a incorrect assumption.
Nicely done.

 

[Roustabout]

Are you trying to measure historical severity of storms? There must have been one so bad, Noah had to build an ark for the survival of the human race.

Now if you are trying to measure carbon's effects on the atmosphere, we have plenty of data points.

Typical response.
The earth was covered in ice (frozen water) but covered in water is unfathomable.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Typical response.
The earth was covered in ice (frozen water) but covered in water is unfathomable.

Axis shifts aren't even mentioned. Major ones can cause extermination events, (ice age) minor ones can cause climate change. Yet we ignore the earth is a living changing planet..panacea anyone?

 

[BartW]

It goes up and down due to the Sun.

All of which can be explained by the sun’s activity, not cow farts, vehicle exhaust or paper mills.

You ignored all the info about solar impact of earth temps.

It’s so sad that the discussion has circled back to the “it’s the sun” myth again. Solar irradiance has on average decreased since about 1980, while average temperatures have been rising rapidly since 1980. Also, while the lower atmosphere has been warming, the stratosphere has actually been cooling. This would not be the case if the atmosphere was all being heated by the sun. It is the case due to the greenhouse effect (one of the many accurate predictions from early climate science). Think about it. There are numerous other lines of evidence but those two should be obvious to all. There's a reason not even the professional climate deniers are debating this...

In the long LONG term (millions to billions of years), the evolution of the sun obviously has a significant impact on earth’s temperature. But the most relevant natural factors in human history are Milankovitch Cycles, which are regular changes in Earth’s orbital shape, axial tilt, and axial precession, which affect the amount of sunlight we receive due to geometry -- not due to changes in solar output. These natural cycles have periods of tens of thousands of years, not decades.

 

[BartW]

I try to ignore this hellhole of a thread but since I’ve already succumbed today, I’ll go back and address posts directed at me from the last drive-by

I wasn’t differentiating Antarctic land ice from sea ice Im not that versed on the area. On Arctic Ice which is all sea ice my point which you’ve also basically agreed to I believe is floating ice melting isn’t going to move sea levels.

Yes, it’s the land ice you need to worry about with regard to sea level rise.

You also mentioned warming affecting the density of water. That is a valid point, however you’d have to move several degrees in order to see even a 0.1% change in density. While I’ll admit that even a fraction of a percent change in density can result in observable sea level changes the forcing function simply doesn’t appear that strong.

You’d be surprised I guess. Thermal expansion has contributed about 1/3 of the current sea level rise. Its relative contribution is decreasing though as land ice melt increases.

Edit: I googled Antarctic Sea Ice 2019. From NOAA.gov. I’d say the biggest thing that jumps out is the variability about a fairly nominal level?

Yeah, like I mentioned, Antarctic sea ice is an oddball. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, and Antarctica is land surrounded by ocean. Antarctic sea ice has had the benefit of decreased salinity from the melting of land ice, and of a local cooling influence from the ozone hole (ozone is a greenhouse gas). There are probably other factors at play there too. Nevertheless, both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are currently at record lows for this time of year.

But you are right, there hasn’t been much of a trend in Antarctic sea ice either way. For years climate contrarians pointed to the very slight positive trend in Antarctic sea ice extent as evidence that global warming is not occurring. I assumed you were doing so.

What is your field Bart?

My title is geologist. I majored in physics/astronomy and geology at UT and did a MS in applied geoscience at UW. My research areas were mostly geophysics and planetary science. Out of school I had jobs as a ground penetrating radar analyst and hydrogeologist, but my main career has been with a geotechnical engineering firm. We mostly do soils investigations for new developments, but also work on bridges, tunnels, landslides, sinkholes, etc. No environmental work. We're about half geologists, half engineers.

So he’s an actual meteorologist or a climatologist? Or just espouses that agenda on here?

So no, I’m not a meteorologist or climatologist. But I guess I have enough relevant expertise and have paid attention to the science and politics long enough to be dangerous. It is my #1 political issue, while it’s unfortunately down the list for most. That said I’m not a single-issue voter.

My agenda? I’m a Dutch national (dual citizen) and don’t want my home country to be swallowed by the sea, among others. Ultimately, I want to tackle this problem in the most efficient manner possible. In the near term I’ll settle for increasing scientific literacy and improving the quality of the conversation.

 

[BartW]

It’s not well understood. It’s well accepted as fact. How and why they changed is not well understood at all.

Just because you don’t understand or haven’t done the research, doesn’t mean nobody else has.

Is that how you discuss, by calling people special cookies? It really makes your position stronger.

Your implication was clear.

The plane being buried is a fact. He’ll, I knew the guy that dug it out.
Ice is being gained and lost all the time. Even at the same time.

Ha, yes, that’s the point. Ice is gained and lost all the time. But if the loss is consistently greater than the gain… it becomes a problem

 

[BartW]

Oh yeah, I was just adding to your conversation and ending mine. Our resident meteoroclimatiatrist, Black Sky BartW, just can't seem to admit that Archimedes is right and his beloved climatist that his party has on payroll are wrong on sea ice and water levels. I love his judicious use of the word "much". Where is Samuel L. when you need him.

Sorry brother I think you had mistaken me for another poster. I didn’t take part in that back-and-forth (barely skimmed it) and I have no beef with Archimedes’ principle.

 

[BartW]

You first part about the magazines is exactly what I am saying. The message hasnt been consistent and to the public perception is reality. Doesnt help that you have people in Congress giving us 12 or 11 years. The scientific community may be right but as far as the general public knows there are a bunch of loons yelling wolf. Again, how it is sold. And I never see the scientific community attacking the Al Gores out there crying wolf. Speaks of complicity to me.

Actually, Al Gore caught quite a bit of heat from scientists for his ice-free Arctic summer timeline, for example. That’s the mistake most frequently cited by contrarians. Likewise, the 2030 timeline has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to various degrees, and scientists have repeatedly attempted to correct that. I could cite numerous such instances. I’m sorry that the media and Congress are about as retarded as the general population. There’s only so much we can do.

I dont find it impressive at all that scientists predicted the warming after the cooling as you described. They knew the reflectivity would stabilize, based on your 70 vs 75 dates. So there is only one way for the temps to go. Look at any graph of what the temps have done. There are no plateaus. It's either going up or down.

I don’t follow the logic in this passage. Temperatures don’t just go up and down willy nilly. There is always a force, or balance of forces, causing it to go up, down, or remain steady. And this balance of forces was understood fairly well even 40-50 years ago, as you even seem to acknowledge.

And nothing you have presented does anything to address actual heat production on this planet. Again there is a whole side of the equation that never gets addressed as far as I have seen it. CO2 is just insulation. Doesnt produce any heat. So going back to my point of reductions only getting us so far removing CO2 to non human levels wont fix it. We are generating more and more heat, eventually things will get hot. Even if we arent producing any CO2 whatsoever beyond breathing.

All of our waste heat combined is only about 1% of the magnitude of the extra heat trapped by that extra insulation (and most of that heat still escapes to space despite the greenhouse effect). It's not significant.

I award you a point for coming up with a different and therefore more interesting thought than “it’s the sun” or some such recycled garbage argument, but I assure you, scientists have already looked into this too.

If the science is agreed, and I am not arguing it as I typically cant find fault with it, why the continued studies? As you pointed out we are beyond that point. How about real solutions? Why increases in studies, why assign blame? We know the problem, and typically speaking we know how to fix it.

We didn’t stop studying physics when Newton published the Principia. We didn’t stop studying space after we landed on the moon. We’re not going to stop studying climate sciences because we know humans are causing present climate change.

The solutions are reducing emissions, carbon capture, or other geoengineering, and there’s tons of research into varieties of each. There’s tons of research into adaptation. There’s continued need for monitoring and accumulation of data. I’m not sure what exactly you meant by “assign blame”, but I do think it’s important to monitor sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (both through bookkeeping and remote sensing) in order to most efficiently reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases and in order to hold slackers and scoundrels accountable through the Paris Agreement.

 

[Mick]

Typical response.
The earth was covered in ice (frozen water) but covered in water is unfathomable.

That is the stupidest response ever. If the earth was covered in either, we are gone. I hope you have a ticket for the next ark.

 

[Roustabout]

That is the stupidest response ever. If the earth was covered in either, we are gone. I hope you have a ticket for the next ark.

So you are an ice age denier!

 

[Mick]

Axis shifts aren't even mentioned. Major ones can cause extermination events, (ice age) minor ones can cause climate change. Yet we ignore the earth is a living changing planet..panacea anyone?

Why is Earth’s axis shifting? | Cosmos

 

[Mick]

So you are an ice age denier!

No I'm not denying the multiple ice ages scientist have discovered, Strawman much? Of course you do, you're a redhat. Were humans alive at the height of the Ice age and is another ice age currently threatening our existence?

 

[Mick]

Actually, Al Gore caught quite a bit of heat from scientists for his ice-free Arctic summer timeline, for example. That’s the mistake most frequently cited by contrarians. Likewise, the 2030 timeline has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to various degrees, and scientists have repeatedly attempted to correct that. I could cite numerous such instances. I’m sorry that the media and Congress are about as retarded as the general population. There’s only so much we can do.

I don’t follow the logic in this passage. Temperatures don’t just go up and down willy nilly. There is always a force, or balance of forces, causing it to go up, down, or remain steady. And this balance of forces was understood fairly well even 40-50 years ago, as you even seem to acknowledge.

All of our waste heat combined is only about 1% of the magnitude of the extra heat trapped by that extra insulation (and most of that heat still escapes to space despite the greenhouse effect). It's not significant.

I award you a point for coming up with a different and therefore more interesting thought than “it’s the sun” or some such recycled garbage argument, but I assure you, scientists have already looked into this too.

We didn’t stop studying physics when Newton published the Principia. We didn’t stop studying space after we landed on the moon. We’re not going to stop studying climate sciences because we know humans are causing present climate change.

The solutions are reducing emissions, carbon capture, or other geoengineering, and there’s tons of research into varieties of each. There’s tons of research into adaptation. There’s continued need for monitoring and accumulation of data. I’m not sure what exactly you meant by “assign blame”, but I do think it’s important to monitor sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (both through bookkeeping and remote sensing) in order to most efficiently reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases and in order to hold slackers and scoundrels accountable through the Paris Agreement.

Can't wait for the resident climate science deniers to show their ignorance. I think they stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so you better watch out.

 

[Roustabout]

No I'm not denying the multiple ice ages scientist have discovered, Strawman much? Of course you do, you're a redhat. Were humans alive at the height of the Ice age and is another ice age currently threatening our existence?

I’m not a red hat. I’m a vocal critic of Trump, didn’t vote for him and won’t this time either. My last post was to point out the very thing you just accused me of. Perhaps you ought to slow down.

I believe humans were alive at the last ice age.

 

[Mick]

I’m not a red hat. I’m a vocal critic of Trump, didn’t vote for him and won’t this time either. My last post was to point out the very thing you just accused me of. Perhaps you ought to slow down.

I believe humans were alive at the last ice age.

You are completely ignoring the impact humans have on the climate. You seem to think climate is an ever changing thing based on a multitude of natural phenomena excluding humans. Is that what you believe? Climate science tells you we are also variables in this big equation.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Why is Earth’s axis shifting? | Cosmos

This is the chicken and egg argument right?