The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here (Not)

[Jack Frost]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805

OK, I admit adding the "(Not)".  

Totally gnarly but at the same time compellingly heinous article dudes.

From the article:

"As you might expect, having tickets to the front row of a global environmental catastrophe is taking an increasingly emotional toll on scientists, and in some cases pushing them toward advocacy."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

The same "scientists" that became so emotional upon hearing all of the catastrophes rattled off in an "Inconvenient Truth"??????  You know, the ones that didn't come true.....

 

 

 

[WidreMann]

Why do deniers always fall back on Al Gore and that movie? The issue of climate change doesn't begin and end with him. Maybe he made some **** predictions, but so what? He's one guy and he's not even a scientist. Just please stop.

[Jack Frost]

6 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Why do deniers always fall back on Al Gore and that movie? The issue of climate change doesn't begin and end with him. Maybe he made some **** predictions, but so what? He's one guy and he's not even a scientist. Just please stop.

Glad to see that you deny the prophecies in "that movie" since none came true.  Shows you still have some grip on reality but it does also make you a "denier".   At least to Al Gore it does!!!  

By the way, Al didn't write - as far as I know - the article cited above, or the many thousands of other superhype pieces designed to fool the general public into believing crisis is imminent.  Most, if not all of which are spawned from and the progeny of "A Convenient Lie".

So "just please stop" deflecting from the hypocrisy of the snake oil anthropomorphic global warming climate change religious zealots that inundate media with "CO2" smokestacks belching black and white pollutants purporting to be a gas that is colorless and odorless, as well as one that you exhale as a necessary part of every breath you take, not to mention all of the other propaganda designed to induce mass hysteria.  Just seems to many that if this science was so settled there would be no need for the AGM religious zealots to be so deceptive, disingenuous, misleading and dishonest.

Much more interesting to read what PhDs in Atmospheric Science have studied and concluded:

http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/ 

 

 

[WidreMann]

How are they being deceptive and dishonest? They do research, and these are the results of the research. We are now seeing rising sea levels, melting glaciers, increasing temperatures and changes in weather patterns, all more or less consistent with the general predictions of the AGW model. Even the oil companies know and knew about AGW, but instead of working to deal with it, they paid a bunch of people to peddle lies, which you have, without question, gulped up. I used to be an AGW skeptic for many years, but I looked at the data and the science and the answer is clear. Same thing happened to a local meteorologist here (Greg Fishel), who was a big skeptic for many years, but could no longer hold that position after doing a bunch of research.

[Jack Frost]

9 hours ago, WidreMann said:

How are they being deceptive and dishonest? They do research, and these are the results of the research. We are now seeing rising sea levels, melting glaciers, increasing temperatures and changes in weather patterns, all more or less consistent with the general predictions of the AGW model. Even the oil companies know and knew about AGW, but instead of working to deal with it, they paid a bunch of people to peddle lies, which you have, without question, gulped up. I used to be an AGW skeptic for many years, but I looked at the data and the science and the answer is clear. Same thing happened to a local meteorologist here (Greg Fishel), who was a big skeptic for many years, but could no longer hold that position after doing a bunch of research.

 

I don't think the author(s) of the article cited above did much research, do you?

I understand the compelling nature of groupthink and am not surprised when people of otherwise solid character cave to be part of the "in" crowd.

That, however, does not make for compelling science, now does it?

 

 

[WidreMann]

14 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

I don't think the author(s) of the article cited above did much research, do you?

I understand the compelling nature of groupthink and am not surprised when people of otherwise solid character cave to be part of the "in" crowd.

That, however, does not make for compelling science, now does it?

 

 

I don't want to be in any "in crowd". I want the planet I was born on and will die on to not become a vast unliveable wasteland because the people in power and their sycophants wanted to bury their head in the sand so oil companies could make a few extra bucks. I'd really really rather prefer that AGW *not* happen. If we had some serious research that came out tomorrow that said, actually, it's some weird sun cycle and it's going away in a few years, I'd be happy as a clam.

[Jack Frost]

On April 17, 2017 at 11:40 PM, WidreMann said:

I don't want to be in any "in crowd". I want the planet I was born on and will die on to not become a vast unliveable wasteland because the people in power and their sycophants wanted to bury their head in the sand so oil companies could make a few extra bucks. I'd really really rather prefer that AGW *not* happen. If we had some serious research that came out tomorrow that said, actually, it's some weird sun cycle and it's going away in a few years, I'd be happy as a clam.

Notwithstanding this quote, I have every confidence based upon some of your other posts that you are (can be) open minded.    

[NCWX]

I think part over it is the younger generation who are very very misinformed and gullible. And people teaching our kids who are way in left field.   A neighbors kid  (Freshman at the local CC.) was told by his professor that yes something like A day after Tomorrow could happen and likely will, and that Al Gores movie had more facts in it than any other source.  I showed him otherwise and asked how old his professor was.  28.   And what was he teaching? Political Studies.   We do not need idiots like him teaching.  We need our kids to learn facts. Not some Hollywood BS.  

[WidreMann]

On 4/22/2017 at 9:25 PM, NCWX said:

I think part over it is the younger generation who are very very misinformed and gullible. And people teaching our kids who are way in left field.   A neighbors kid  (Freshman at the local CC.) was told by his professor that yes something like A day after Tomorrow could happen and likely will, and that Al Gores movie had more facts in it than any other source.  I showed him otherwise and asked how old his professor was.  28.   And what was he teaching? Political Studies.   We do not need idiots like him teaching.  We need our kids to learn facts. Not some Hollywood BS.  

Okay, sure, we don't need idiots. I mean, I often facepalm when I see science reporting, even in areas that I am far from being expert in. You can just tell. So no disagreements from me on that point. But do *not* chalk up the concept of climate change and the evidence for it to just young people being gullible. Far from it. In fact, I was a young person who was gullible enough to be a skeptic/denier for several years. The evidence, however, was just too great to hold onto that POV. Would like to see more adults make the same transition. You should check out our local weatherman Greg Fishel, who was a skeptic for a long time, but in the last year or so did a bunch of research (including travelling and talking with climate scientists) and is now a "believer". He's not young, and he knows his stuff.

And finally, can we *please* stop mentioning anything related to Al Gore? He's a non-scientist messenger, one of many, who sold a particular story, parts of which were right and parts of which weren't. The idea of AGW and the expected consequences do not begin and end with what Al Gore may or may not have said in a movie that came out a decade ago.

[Claire]

Sever climate changes are constantly noted across the world. The cold weather is becoming colder and colder while the hot weather is becoming hotter and hotter every year. Scientists are performing research on climate for years and according to them global warming is the reasons behind the significant changes in the weather conditions, but not every person agree to it.  meteorologist predict the changes in weather. Some of the predictions come true but we cannot disagree to the fact that the weather conditions have improved over time and it is also one of the reasons that now every smart phone users uses a weather application in their cell phone. So that they could stay updated about the incoming weather changes.

[skierinvermont]

7 hours ago, Claire said:

Sever climate changes are constantly noted across the world. The cold weather is becoming colder and colder while the hot weather is becoming hotter and hotter every year. 

Cold weather is not becoming colder. There are many less cold records set these days than you'd expect. The ratio or record hot to record cold is now like 2:1 or 3:1. 

Maybe in certain regions at certain times of year there has been a lot of unusual cold weather possibly related to increased blocking from AGW.

[Snow_Miser]

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

Cold weather is not becoming colder. There are many less cold records set these days than you'd expect. The ratio or record hot to record cold is now like 2:1 or 3:1. 

Maybe in certain regions at certain times of year there has been a lot of unusual cold weather possibly related to increased blocking from AGW.

According to Coumou et al., it is actually slightly higher than 3:1, at around 4:1. The Coumou et al. projections have the ratio of heat records to cold records increasing to 12:1  in 23 years.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1

[donsutherland1]

25 minutes ago, Snow_Miser said:

According to Coumou et al., it is actually slightly higher than 3:1, at around 4:1. The Coumou et al. projections have the ratio of heat records to cold records increasing to 12:1  in 23 years.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0668-1

Through 4/21, the global year-to-date ratios are as follows:

Record high maximum:Record high minimum: 4.2

Record high minimum:Record low minimum: 5.8

Record high maximum:Record low minimum: 5.2

Record high (both maximum and minimum temperatures): Record low (both maximum and minimum temperatures): 4.9

[so_whats_happening]

On 4/22/2017 at 9:25 PM, NCWX said:

I think part over it is the younger generation who are very very misinformed and gullible. And people teaching our kids who are way in left field.   A neighbors kid  (Freshman at the local CC.) was told by his professor that yes something like A day after Tomorrow could happen and likely will, and that Al Gores movie had more facts in it than any other source.  I showed him otherwise and asked how old his professor was.  28.   And what was he teaching? Political Studies.   We do not need idiots like him teaching.  We need our kids to learn facts. Not some Hollywood BS.  

The thing that bugs me on this is not everyone is gullible in the younger generation, it's whether people are willing to put the effort into understanding something and actually discerning truth from prophetic talk. So in a sense you can apply this same talk to every generation as to whether they want to believe this is in fact truth or something to question or something they are misguided with. I do not like how many teachers and professors feel as though it is their duty to incorporate their personal beliefs into discussion and teachings. 

 

Also one thing I would like to add for sure that I do not think anyone can deny while we have been seeing records for warmth I feel the majority of the records have been for overnight temps in many many locations we have been well above average I'm not sure exactly if this is the case for other locations but around here it has been due to overnight cloudiness and low level moisture increase. It may just be due to change in weather patterns allowing such to occur but when we have dayseen like today where we reached about 62 but our low stays at about 58 the high is about 8 degrees below average while the lows are about 10 to 12 above average in the region. That's huge because if you can not release the heat from the daytime due to low level residual moisture holding temps up then the next day we already make a run to higher temps and thus the process continues until the pattern breaks. This might be over simplifying something but many of our records occur during fall and winter versus spring and summer around here.

[WidreMann]

6 hours ago, so_whats_happening said:

The thing that bugs me on this is not everyone is gullible in the younger generation, it's whether people are willing to put the effort into understanding something and actually discerning truth from prophetic talk. So in a sense you can apply this same talk to every generation as to whether they want to believe this is in fact truth or something to question or something they are misguided with. I do not like how many teachers and professors feel as though it is their duty to incorporate their personal beliefs into discussion and teachings. 

 

Also one thing I would like to add for sure that I do not think anyone can deny while we have been seeing records for warmth I feel the majority of the records have been for overnight temps in many many locations we have been well above average I'm not sure exactly if this is the case for other locations but around here it has been due to overnight cloudiness and low level moisture increase. It may just be due to change in weather patterns allowing such to occur but when we have dayseen like today where we reached about 62 but our low stays at about 58 the high is about 8 degrees below average while the lows are about 10 to 12 above average in the region. That's huge because if you can not release the heat from the daytime due to low level residual moisture holding temps up then the next day we already make a run to higher temps and thus the process continues until the pattern breaks. This might be over simplifying something but many of our records occur during fall and winter versus spring and summer around here.

Those higher nighttime temperatures are part of climate change. The sun isn't any stronger, but the decrease in heat's ability to leave at night (including and especially polar night) due to carbon dioxide is one of the dead give-aways about what is going on.

[so_whats_happening]

16 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Those higher nighttime temperatures are part of climate change. The sun isn't any stronger, but the decrease in heat's ability to leave at night (including and especially polar night) due to carbon dioxide is one of the dead give-aways about what is going on.

I mean I get the whole idea that co2 traps heat but how come nobody mentions the idea of water vapor trapping much of this at the surface and water vapor is in fact a much stronger ghg then co2 but since co2 lasts longer in the atmosphere we relate it to havingredients a much stronger forcing,if you will? I know water vapor in the atmosphere tends to have a lower time it resides in the atmosphere but can also be replenished just as quickly by similar processes. The thing that gets me is that with constant low level moisture stream you tend to have warmer muddled temperatures,coastal communities for example, but when we do not have moisture content as large say at night we have our diurnal swing when we have a true diurnal swing around here its not quite as noticeable of a temp change as one may think over time. Could our exuberant temperatures be due increases in low level water vapor in the atmosphere which willing turn have a feed back on melting and warming locations which will then set off a feedback process from that disturbance. I know it may another oversimplification but from my climate change class I took as a BS undergrad they pointed this process out that a slight change in one feedback can alter another feedback and alter another to create a positive feedback loop that can eventually turn maybe into a run away train type of ordeal until one day it hits a tipping point.

 

Personally I just have a hard time conceptualizing the idea of how a doubling of co2, which has not occurred just yet currently at 400ppm average, in the atmosphere will increase temperatures such in a drastic pace as we have seen over the past 50to 75 years before this it seemed fairly consistent with time and with variations on either side and know we are really taking off. This is maybe more of a local idea but I know one thing for sure that temps alone can't really do too much to melt snow but add moisture into the mix even at a temp of say 34 and you have a totally different scenario sometimes down this way we have seen rapid melt occur from a temp such as that with a strong moisture Flux into the region. So something is telling me it is not all co2 but that co2 may be adding into the equation of our changing climate.

[ORH_wxman]

Increased water vapor is a feedback of CO2 doubling...in fact, it is the dominant feedback which makes the feedbacks positive as a whole...so that's why the temp rise is more than the single 3.7 W/M2 energy imbalance (which is about 1.1C of temp rise) that occurs solely from the doubling of CO2.

[so_whats_happening]

Also one more thing to add but when I was taking this class the water cycle and it's association in the atmosphere was not detailed very much as we have seen with co2 in class. Is this because water vapor has a really short tau in the atmosphere or is it because it's just not well understood as its longer lasting friend co2? I know we as humans have thrown a huge monkey wrench into the water cycle that surely needs to be corrected unless the atmosphere decides it wants to correct itself, which may just be happening as we speak about this topic.

[so_whats_happening]

9 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Increased water vapor is a feedback of CO2 doubling...in fact, it is the dominant feedback which makes the feedbacks positive as a whole...so that's why the temp rise is more than the single 3.7 W/M2 energy imbalance (which is about 1.1C of temp rise) that occurs solely from the doubling of CO2.

So they work in conjunction not far fetched at all but from what I have been hearing we seem to have this "blanket", if you will, setting up in the upper atmosphere, troposphere I would assume, wouldn't necessarily the whole column of air increase in temp or is it one of those functions where we see drastic increases in surface in conjunction with water vapor that help warm but the upper layers may tend to cool? I know as you go up in the atmosphere it's not necessarily feel temperature as you would experience at the surface it's more of energy based heat that jostle the molecules,so as if you were up in the Stratosphere it would fridged to our real feel skin but warm us on the inside, right?

 

I'm just really curious about this topic and with only my knowledge of undergrad meteorology I'm trying to grasp these ideas and understand them without trying to be persuaded to one side or the other as it seems to be in many cases, rather try and figure this out and then down the road we can play the blame game.

[ORH_wxman]

25 minutes ago, so_whats_happening said:

So they work in conjunction not far fetched at all but from what I have been hearing we seem to have this "blanket", if you will, setting up in the upper atmosphere, troposphere I would assume, wouldn't necessarily the whole column of air increase in temp or is it one of those functions where we see drastic increases in surface in conjunction with water vapor that help warm but the upper layers may tend to cool? I know as you go up in the atmosphere it's not necessarily feel temperature as you would experience at the surface it's more of energy based heat that jostle the molecules,so as if you were up in the Stratosphere it would fridged to our real feel skin but warm us on the inside, right?

 

I'm just really curious about this topic and with only my knowledge of undergrad meteorology I'm trying to grasp these ideas and understand them without trying to be persuaded to one side or the other as it seems to be in many cases, rather try and figure this out and then down the road we can play the blame game.

So the whole troposphere should warm.  But stratosphere and higher up should cool because of changes in LW radiation flux due to the increased CO2 concentration.