Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[donsutherland1]

On 4/2/2024 at 11:17 AM, ChescoWx said:

OHN CLAUSER, 2022 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: "I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency." “As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated. So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics. The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system. Two-thirds of the Earth are ocean. The Pacific Ocean alone is half the Earth. The average cloud cover for the Earth is 67%; about 50% over land and 75% over oceans. I claim that the above conspicuous properties of clouds are the missing part of the puzzle.

Clauser's claims are deeply flawed. Moreover, he fails to even attempt to provide a coherent and credible alternative explanation to the observed warming that climate science links to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Clauser: "I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency."

Fact: Relative to geological time, the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is extreme. As, an emergency is a "serious...and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action," climate change fits the definition. Even if the worst of the danger still lies in the future, immediate action could avert the worst consequences.

Clauser: "...atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate."

Fact: The Greenhouse Effect has been understood since the 19th century. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. Both promote warming by reducing outgoing longwave radiation in relation to incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. This energy imbalance warms the planet. The increases in anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane explain virtually all of the warming that has occurred since 1750.

Clauser: "The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated. "

Fact: With burning of fossil fuels contributing to most of the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the claim that the modest policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is "total(sic) unnecessary" is baseless. A much stronger case can be made that the policies that fall far short of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 lack necessary ambition.

Clauser: "So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics."

Fact: The models, for all their imperfections, have shown remarkable skill in correctly forecasting the observed warming. Hausfather et al., 2019 observed, "...most models examined showed warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between projected and observationally informed estimates of forcing were taken into account."

Clauser: "The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system."

Fact: There is some evidence that the cooling effect of clouds is understated in existing climate models. However, there is also evidence that increased CO2 leads to cloud changes that decrease their cooling effect (fewer lower- and middle-level clouds, more high clouds). This cloud behavior resulted in increased climate sensitivity at higher levels of CO2, particularly during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). NASA has observed a recent increase in polar stratospheric clouds, particularly over the Arctic. Overall, the emerging consensus is that cloud feedbacks will enhance, not reduce the warming driven by rising greenhouse gases.

[ChescoWx]

48 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Clauser's claims are deeply flawed. Moreover, he fails to even attempt to provide a coherent and credible alternative explanation to the observed warming that climate science links to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Clauser: "I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency."

Fact: Relative to geological time, the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is extreme. As, an emergency is a "serious...and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action," climate change fits the definition. Even if the worst of the danger still lies in the future, immediate action could avert the worst consequences.

Clauser: "...atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate."

Fact: The Greenhouse Effect has been understood since the 19th century. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide. Both promote warming by reducing outgoing longwave radiation in relation to incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. This energy imbalance warms the planet. The increases in anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane explain virtually all of the warming that has occurred since 1750.

Clauser: "The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated. "

Fact: With burning of fossil fuels contributing to most of the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the claim that the modest policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is "total(sic) unnecessary" is baseless. A much stronger case can be made that the policies that fall far short of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 lack necessary ambition.

Clauser: "So far, [we] have totally misidentified what is the dominant process in controlling the climate, and all of the various models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics."

Fact: The models, for all their imperfections, have shown remarkable skill in correctly forecasting the observed warming. Hausfather et al., 2019 observed, "...most models examined showed warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between projected and observationally informed estimates of forcing were taken into account."

Clauser: "The dominant process, is “the cloud-sunlight-reflexivity thermostat mechanism. Clouds are all bright white, and they reflected 90% of the sunlight back into space making them the most crucial yet most overlooked aspect of the climate system."

Fact: There is some evidence that the cooling effect of clouds is understated in existing climate models. However, there is also evidence that increased CO2 leads to cloud changes that decrease their cooling effect (fewer lower- and middle-level clouds, more high clouds). This cloud behavior resulted in increased climate sensitivity at higher levels of CO2, particularly during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). NASA has observed a recent increase in polar stratospheric clouds, particularly over the Arctic. Overall, the emerging consensus is that cloud feedbacks will enhance, not reduce the warming driven by rising greenhouse gases.

The earth long ago perfected the CO2 experiment and it has been around for a very long time. The actual geological record has proven negative feedbacks exist in nature. If negative feedbacks did not exist, we never would have survived. The only thing unusual about the CO2 concentration we have in the atmosphere is how little of it there is today!!

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

The earth long ago perfected the CO2 experiment and it has been around for a very long time. The actual geological record has proven negative feedbacks exist in nature. If negative feedbacks did not exist, we never would have survived. The only thing unusual about the CO2 concentration we have in the atmosphere is how little of it there is today!!

During the far more elevated CO2 regimes, the Earth was a much warmer place than it is today. It was also a place that was far outside the experience of humans. Moreover, past spikes in CO2, often from massive ongoing volcanic activity, led to catastrophic outcomes for most species.

The contemporary world is not in a situation similar to when those mass extinctions took place. But it is on a firm trajectory toward the mid-Pliocene Warm Period of 3-4 million years ago. If anything, the political leaders gathered at COP 28 essentially ratified that trajectory in failing to come up with even the earliest caps on CO2 emissions. The world could enter the early stages of this new climate regime by around 2040 on its present path.

The world of the mid-Pliocene would be dramatically different from the one in which modern human society evolved. It could result in dramatic and rapid societal simplification, due to food supply-consumption gaps, loss of coastal megacities from 10+ meters of sea level rise (this goes beyond 2100), societal disruptions from aridification, poleward migration of tropical-borne diseases, new viral pathways as migrating specifies come into contact, etc.

Once mid-Pliocene conditions set in, there would be the risk that the warmth would be sufficient to trigger the release methane that is currently locked away under the oceans and in permafrost. It's uncertain what temperature threshold would be required to trigger that outcome, but the risk would be far higher than it is today, even with today's warm climate.

Even with societal simplification, the world would go on. Arguably, some of the current pressures on biodiversity could be alleviated. But that would be a very bad outcome for human society even if biodiversity begins to heal. That outcome is still an avoidable one and a matter of choice.

 

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

During the far more elevated CO2 regimes, the Earth was a much warmer place than it is today. It was also a place that was far outside the experience of humans. Moreover, past spikes in CO2, often from massive ongoing volcanic activity, led to catastrophic outcomes for most species.

The contemporary world is not in a situation similar to when those mass extinctions took place. But it is on a firm trajectory toward the mid-Pliocene Warm Period of 3-4 million years ago. If anything, the political leaders gathered at COP 28 essentially ratified that trajectory in failing to come up with even the earliest caps on CO2 emissions. The world could enter the early stages of this new climate regime by around 2040 on its present path.

The world of the mid-Pliocene would be dramatically different from the one in which modern human society evolved. It could result in dramatic and rapid societal simplification, due to food supply-consumption gaps, loss of coastal megacities from 10+ meters of sea level rise (this goes beyond 2100), societal disruptions from aridification, poleward migration of tropical-borne diseases, new viral pathways as migrating specifies come into contact, etc.

Once mid-Pliocene conditions set in, there would be the risk that the warmth would be sufficient to trigger the release methane that is currently locked away under the oceans and in permafrost. It's uncertain what temperature threshold would be required to trigger that outcome, but the risk would be far higher than it is today, even with today's warm climate.

Even with societal simplification, the world would go on. Arguably, some of the current pressures on biodiversity could be alleviated. But that would be a very bad outcome for human society even if biodiversity begins to heal. That outcome is still an avoidable one and a matter of choice.

 

So are we sure that climate change is bad or a problem? Or is it simply the cyclical nature of our climate. What exactly is our correct appropriate temperature or even range of temperatures?  How much do you think we warm by the new climate regime in 2040? Can you or anyone identify even one catastrophic climate event in the world that has happened in the last 30 years due to our current cyclical warming cycle? Any one will do. Of course it must have never happened before. All weather events that we can measure to date have all happened before....what weather event has recently happened (last 50 years) that actually never took place before? Can you point to a solid real world actual event that you or anyone can attribute to man made climate change?

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

So are we sure that climate change is bad or a problem? Or is it simply the cyclical nature of our climate. What exactly is our correct appropriate temperature or even range of temperatures?  How much do you think we warm by the new climate regime in 2040? Can you or anyone identify even one catastrophic climate event in the world that has happened in the last 30 years due to our current cyclical warming cycle? Any one will do. Of course it must have never happened before. All weather events that we can measure to date have all happened before....what weather event has recently happened (last 50 years) that actually never took place before? Can you point to a solid real world actual event that you or anyone can attribute to man made climate change?

Love the denier talking point logic: The climate has always changed; but, storms, droughts, heat waves. etc. never change. Why bother Don, the information you are requesting is widely available. A google search brought a long list of articles on climate change impacts on insurance rates. Here's an example.

https://www.investopedia.com/the-costs-of-climate-change-are-already-here-in-your-insurance-bill-8414294

• Climate change is partly responsible for a recent surge in insurance premiums, and the costs will continue to mount in the future.
• Climate change makes storms, extreme heat, floods, and other catastrophes more likely.
• Insurers are passing the increasing costs of paying claims on to consumers.

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

Love the denier talking point logic: The climate has always changed; but, storms, droughts, heat waves. etc. never change. Why bother Don, the information you are requesting is widely available. A google search brought a long list of articles on climate change impacts on insurance rates. Here's an example.

https://www.investopedia.com/the-costs-of-climate-change-are-already-here-in-your-insurance-bill-8414294

• Climate change is partly responsible for a recent surge in insurance premiums, and the costs will continue to mount in the future.
• Climate change makes storms, extreme heat, floods, and other catastrophes more likely.
• Insurers are passing the increasing costs of paying claims on to consumers.

 

More and more areas that have been ravaged by fires or floods are also being abandoned outright by insurers. This process is still in its early stages. 

In a decade or two, the lack of insurance coverage could decimate property values in some of the exposed areas. Worse, given federal deficits and Congressional dysfunction, it is unlikely that the federal government would launch a program where it would become the buyer of last resort. Climate change has real and growing costs. 

[ChescoWx]

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

Love the denier talking point logic: The climate has always changed; but, storms, droughts, heat waves. etc. never change. Why bother Don, the information you are requesting is widely available. A google search brought a long list of articles on climate change impacts on insurance rates. Here's an example.

https://www.investopedia.com/the-costs-of-climate-change-are-already-here-in-your-insurance-bill-8414294

• Climate change is partly responsible for a recent surge in insurance premiums, and the costs will continue to mount in the future.
• Climate change makes storms, extreme heat, floods, and other catastrophes more likely.
• Insurers are passing the increasing costs of paying claims on to consumers.

 

Love the typical alarmist talking points - as usual Charlie shows us no facts like dates and storms that are attributable to climate change in this alarmist answer. Just the tired old bullet points that are alarmist talking points with not one shred of evidence.... you know like an actual date, storm, observation or fact. I will wait for you to list events that anyone can directly attribute to our current period of cyclical warming.

[ChescoWx]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

More and more areas that have been ravaged by fires or floods are also being abandoned outright by insurers. This process is still in its early stages. 

In a decade or two, the lack of insurance coverage could decimate property values in some of the exposed areas. Worse, given federal deficits and Congressional dysfunction, it is unlikely that the federal government would launch a program where it would become the buyer of last resort. Climate change has real and growing costs. 

Don please provide some actual dates and events that have never happened before that are the result of climate change? Those places ravaged by fires and floods have of course been ravaged by fires and floods in the past. There is zero factual evidence....

[ChescoWx]

Looks like our current cyclical climate change is really hurting the world's crop production....

[ChescoWx]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

More and more areas that have been ravaged by fires or floods are also being abandoned outright by insurers. This process is still in its early stages. 

In a decade or two, the lack of insurance coverage could decimate property values in some of the exposed areas. Worse, given federal deficits and Congressional dysfunction, it is unlikely that the federal government would launch a program where it would become the buyer of last resort. Climate change has real and growing costs. 

Don where is the problem again?? Life expectancy up....undernourished population down....deaths from natural disasters - down. How can all of this be happening in the world of climate alarmism? Where again is the crisis???

[donsutherland1]

14 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

So are we sure that climate change is bad or a problem? Or is it simply the cyclical nature of our climate. What exactly is our correct appropriate temperature or even range of temperatures?  How much do you think we warm by the new climate regime in 2040? Can you or anyone identify even one catastrophic climate event in the world that has happened in the last 30 years due to our current cyclical warming cycle? Any one will do. Of course it must have never happened before. All weather events that we can measure to date have all happened before....what weather event has recently happened (last 50 years) that actually never took place before? Can you point to a solid real world actual event that you or anyone can attribute to man made climate change?

Climate change has played a role throughout the paleo record in driving or contributing to extinctions and reduction in biodiversity. Warmer climates have resulted in higher sea levels, levels that would require abandonment of major coastal megalopolises if they are again reached. Those two bad outcomes.

Whether climate change is a cycle (past events) or anthropogenic (current event) is irrelevant. Being cyclical or non-anthropogenic doesn't mean that an outcome is "not bad." The outcomes determine whether it is "bad." Certainly, for the life that suffers or goes extinct, it is "bad." For the new life that emerges, it's arguably a "good" outcome. From the human perspective, as noted above regarding rising sea levels that could culminate in loss of the coastal plain and low-lying islands around the world, it is not good.

Although there is no "correct" temperature, theoretically the "correct" temperature range on a habitable planet is the range at which life can exist unaided. So far, some extremophiles have been found at temperatures ranging from near -20C (-4F) to 50C (122F). Complex life requires a narrower range. Technology has expanded the range at which humans can survive, but if biodiversity falls below a threshold or large-scale extinction occurs dramatically reducing food options, the human population would suffer a precipitous and rapid decline. Setting this aside, modern humans evolved during the Holocene. The Holocene temperature range might be the ideal one for humans.

On the current trajectory, the world would likely warm 0.3C - 0.5C (0.5F - 0.9F) by 2040. If recent work by James Hansen is correct, the warming would be greater. Either way, the global temperature is on track to reach Pliocene-level temperatures by 2040. Those temperatures are outside the modern human experience.

In terms of catastrophic events, it depends on how you define "catastrophic." Summer 2022 saw an estimated 70,000 persons succumb from heat in Europe. Somalia saw 43,000 drought-related deaths, half of which were children, in 2023. Climate change made that drought an estimated 100 times more likely.

Summer 2023 provides an example of an unprecedented event for the period of record (1896-present) in Phoenix. July had an average temperature of 102.7F (old monthly mark for any month: 99.1) and there was a 31-consecutive-day stretch (June 30-July 30) of 110F or above high temperatures (old record: 18 days). No American city had ever experienced such a hot month over a monthly period (Death Valley is not a city). That heat was linked to climate change in an attribution study.

The climates of the geological past e.g., Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) were hotter and more extreme. But CO2 was much higher then, than it is now. Thus, "unprecedented" isn't the best way to examine contemporary anthropogenic climate change. One needs context. One is witnessing unprecedented events over the existing period of record and very likely the warmest temperatures throughout the entire Holocene. 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, ChescoWx said:

Don where is the problem again?? Life expectancy up....undernourished population down....deaths from natural disasters - down. How can all of this be happening in the world of climate alarmism? Where again is the crisis???

No one denies the progress that has been made. But the progress isn't proof that the warming climate is a good thing. Life expectancy gains have increased from a combination of medical breakthroughs, mass warning for severe weather events, etc. Early warning made possible by advances in meteorology and technology for rapid mass dissemination of messages (radio, TV, wireless devices, etc.) have dramatically reduced the incidence of deaths from natural disasters. Electricity has made life better, but that doesn't mean that society must remain irrevocably committed to producing electricity from the burning of fossil fuels and flooding of the atmosphere with CO2. Rapid scaling of existing technology (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.) can begin to dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels in the energy sector (not overnight, but on a decadal scale).

[Typhoon Tip]

There is spectrum of denial forms.   

At the heart of it all, people would stop all of it ... if CC caused them pain. 

End of story.

As I've opined at length, in the past, the simple version is that people are not suffering consequences that actually cause them discomfort for the perspectives ...more importantly, the decisions they make based upon those perspectives.   When they do, they will immediately desist all  behaviors that cause the discomfort.   - and denying CC --> causing CC, will go away.

Unfortunately, it will be too late.  

Welcome to the this world's reality-explanation for the Fermi Paradox. 

[ChescoWx]

24 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

There is spectrum of denial forms.   

At the heart of it all, people would stop all of it ... if CC caused them pain. 

End of story.

As I've opined at length, in the past, the simple version is that people are not suffering consequences that actually cause them discomfort for the perspectives ...more importantly, the decisions they make based upon those perspectives.   When they do, they will immediately desist all  behaviors that cause the discomfort.   - and denying CC --> causing CC, will go away.

Unfortunately, it will be too late.  

Welcome to the this world's reality-explanation for the Fermi Paradox. 

Thanks Tip! and of course a spectrum of alarmist forms also!!  I of course do not deny nor can anyone not see that climate change is real and constant!!  Your post certainly sounds a lot like a climate alarmists (CA) with a nice mix of gloom and doom with of course the absence of any actual actual unprecedented weather events.Sounds like you might even think climate change killed the aliens....of course Fermi is not a paradox at all - way way too many variables and more like mental gymnastics!

[Typhoon Tip]

23 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Thanks Tip! and of course a spectrum of alarmist forms also!!  I of course do not deny nor can anyone not see that climate change is real and constant!!  Your post certainly sounds a lot like a climate alarmists (CA) with a nice mix of gloom and doom with of course the absence of any actual actual unprecedented weather events.Sounds like you might even think climate change killed the aliens....of course Fermi is not a paradox at all - way way too many variables and more like mental gymnastics!

Ha. Just feelin' snarky this morning. 

By the way, I don't know who said what, nor when ...?  If you were thinking I was responding to any one person,  I was just skimming content. The idea of "people denying because they can" is something that just bothers me about the culture we now all live and breath within in general - it's a sociological pathology.  It's bad out there. 

I blame the Internet, really. It's giving a podium to those with limited education, clearly lower virtuosity awareness in whether to speak without having learned information.  Or, they are just not very intelligent due to circumstance/life history ... yet think they know.  They come in different flavors, and socially recognized echelon is no indicator, either.  Hailing from wherever, they believe their own righteous indignation (as though CC is some kind of violation of their rights and entitlement) must be just as meaningful as accredited source, with all the import. 

Sound familiar?  It's like we're all showing up to the 'debates' with 'participation trophies' as our PHDs.  Why that is a problem is that all human being engender conviction when others gather around their ideology.  It's just the way we are. The consensus must be true, and so on... And the internet is linking together the plebeian wit; creating a consensus, it foments whatever narratives it needs - narratives seldom reconcile objectively reality.

I wildly digress. Some of that is tongue-in-cheek cynicism that is probably hard to sense without the necessary sarcastic tone of actual voiced delivery... etc.  But like all sarcasm, there's a soupcon of truth in there, too.

I don't deny CC ( personally ) at all, myself.  But you know ... it's not about whether one denies or doesn't?  Oh, the debate carries on, ...but it's futile.  

It's real, and it is mathematically demonstrated/proven that anthropogenic forcing is playing a roll; all data included, a very big and undeniable roll. 

That's not alarmist, per se. That's fact. 

But therein links back to the sardonic paragraph above:  Objective reality is still interestingly a problem for people. Let me just say the short version, they are being enable to do so.

It's really a sociological problem.  Fix the sociological abstinence to acceptance, fixes everything ... But, the same reason for the CC, is simultaneously preventing people from sensing the reality of CC at a very necessary personal scope - 'personal' because obviously they are unwilling if no apprehensive without some sort or form of direct proof. 

I hypothesize the reason society ended up that way is by what I call 'multi-generational convenience addling'   It's basically all that is emerged since the Industrial Revolution since it took over as the foundation upon which modern civility and all of its practices came into being.  Being protected inside the Industrial Revolution bubble ( and I use bubble for metaphor of fragility, despite the conceit of all the industrial farts that inflate 'the bubble'), reciprocated into successive generations over the last 150 years ... we've bread a peoples that are not particularly very desirable frankly ( hahaha). 

Life inside the industrial bubble affords lesser/no consequence for poor decisions, because it offers too many recourse' ... Rolling that impression over successive generations over the last 150 year, two things happens.   One is recently papered/demonstrated that the average persons IQ is 20 pts lower than those prior to the Industrial Revolution.  I read that paper and thought ...gee, that fits my 'denial because they can' rage rather nicely. hahaha.  It's true though.  The other thing that happens is, people don't believe in the dead end warning of CC and the implication of what it would mean, because every part of their being was fabricated by an entitlement to an abundance of recourse whenever faced with failure.  The resonance of a 'dead end and dire warning' simply can't transmit through their wiring. 

It's a fascinating feed-back argument is what it really is... 

If you took a father in 1750, and showed him data that said if he didn't cultivate a certain way, his kids won't eat tomorrow, chances are he studies that text pretty damn closely rather than knee- jerk reacting in defiance of it.

[Brewbeer]

6 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

… it is mathematically demonstrated/proven that anthropogenic forcing is playing a roll; all data included, a very big and undeniable roll. 

That's not alarmist, per se. That's fact. 

Just repeating this here since this is what the data say and have been saying for 40 years.

[chubbs]

10 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Love the typical alarmist talking points - as usual Charlie shows us no facts like dates and storms that are attributable to climate change in this alarmist answer. Just the tired old bullet points that are alarmist talking points with not one shred of evidence.... you know like an actual date, storm, observation or fact. I will wait for you to list events that anyone can directly attribute to our current period of cyclical warming.

Don't blame me for the "alarmist" talking points, those are Investopedia's points. In a similar vein here's a story on rising Insurance costs in Texas from the Texas Tribune. Hopefully you won't find the climate aspect too alarming.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/30/texas-homeowner-insurance-climate-change-costs/

The science is simple and not controversial. Warmer air holds more water. Droughts, fires, storms etc., behave differently in a warmer world. Your talking point sounds good but misses the mark technically.  The fact that we have always had these events is a reason to be concerned, not relieved. In a warmer world, thunderstorms have more CAPE, hurricanes higher OHC, rain storms more water vapor, fires and droughts accelerated drying conditions. Per chart below, locally a 100-year flood is now a 20-year flood.  I am going to throw it back on you – What weather events aren't being impacted by climate change?

 

[ChescoWx]

13 hours ago, chubbs said:

  I am going to throw it back on you – What weather events aren't being impacted by climate change?

 

 

Easy answer Charlie.....there is no proof that any weather events are impacted by climate change. There are no weather events happening today that have not already occurred in the past....kind of simple!!  Nothing alarming here at all!

[ChescoWx]

Is global cooling underway off the east coast of the US?? I guess global warming is the cause of the warming off the coast of Africa.

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Easy answer Charlie.....there is no proof that any weather events are impacted by climate change. There are no weather events happening today that have not already occurred in the past....kind of simple!!  Nothing alarming here at all!

You can't prove your assertions either. I can provide evidence of climate and weather change, reams of evidence. That's something you are short on..

[Cobalt]

2 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Is global cooling underway off the east coast of the US?? I guess global warming is the cause of the warming off the coast of Africa.

The entirety of the area depicted, averaged out, depicts a positive anomaly against the 1991-2020 averages. The red very obviously takes up more space on the map than the limited blue hues. 

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Is global cooling underway off the east coast of the US?? I guess global warming is the cause of the warming off the coast of Africa.

Sea surface anomaly distributions are susceptible to local time-scale (vastly shorter than 'climate') wind stressing patterns. Those variances may redistribute (warm)(cool) either above or below the longer term baseline, but such interludes seldom represent the longer-termed systemic state.  

 

[ChescoWx]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

You can't prove your assertions either. I can provide evidence of climate and weather change, reams of evidence. That's something you are short on..

Then produce some actual real weather data like below. Funny again Charlie that all of that coast to coast heat when it really was hot back in the 1930's and 1940's needed to be adjusted in all of the post hoc after the fact data you always show. So why are we having less heat waves??

[rclab]

21 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Then produce some actual real weather data like below. Funny again Charlie that all of that coast to coast heat when it really was hot back in the 1930's and 1940's needed to be adjusted in all of the post hoc after the fact data you always show. So why are we having less heat waves??

Good afternoon CW. I read every one of your posts and value the civil interaction demonstrated by the different positions. I’m not qualified to speak technically but I find the example above, if I’m looking at it correctly, reflects a period of time that was known as the dust bowl era. The effects were attributed to practices that ignored any present day sense of conservation. As a species we do seem to have the power to manipulate for the good and sadly for the bad. Please continue to post with civility as you have and I will certain read all and the responses. Never fear I do, as it applies to me,  understand the ‘read more, post less axiom’ stay well, as always ….

[Bhs1975]

Good afternoon CW. I read every one of your posts and value the civil interaction demonstrated by the different positions. I’m not qualified to speak technically but I find the example above, if I’m looking at it correctly, reflects a period of tine that was known as the dust bowl era. The effects were attributed to practices that ignored any present day sense of conservation. As a species we do seem to have the power to manipulate for the good and sadly for the bad. Please continue to post with civility as you have and I will certain read all and the responses. Never fear I do understand the ‘read more, post less axiom’ stay well, as always ….

That goes to show you that if we greatly changed our land use practices and covered as much as possible with plants it would suck down an enormous amount of CO2 and cool the climate by blocking the sunlight from heating the ground.


.

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

That goes to show you that if we greatly changed our land use practices and covered as much as possible with plants it would suck down an enormous amount of CO2 and cool the climate by blocking the sunlight from heating the ground.


.

 This reminds me of an important point, the CO2 fertilization effect. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth due to increased photosynthesis. Also, warmer higher latitudes can lead to an increase in vegetation at higher latitudes due to a longer growing season. This increased plant growth has increased the net greenness of the earth over the last few decades (see image below). That includes much of the US Midwest, which has lead to a cool down there in summer:

“Carbon dioxide is not only a pollutant but a fertilizer — a key ingredient in photosynthesis that helps plants grow. Some farmers inject CO2 into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. But now we’re fertilizing plants on a global scale: In the last two centuries, NASA reports, humans have increased the CO2 content in the air by roughly 50 percent. All that extra CO2 is accelerating leaf growth, and satellites can see it.”

 The above writeup and the image below are from here:

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon

 

 So, this is a natural negative feedback to AGW. Between the cooling due to increased greenness blocking the sunlight as well as holding soil moisture better and an increase in the amount of CO2 being absorbed due to increased vegetation, there is an increase in uncertainty as to how much the globe will actually end up warming in total. Could it eventually cause an equilibrium and halt GW at some point? Is this negative feedback being properly modeled?

 Furthermore, the increase in crop sizes has been resulting in an increase in food supply. So, although I’m not trying to minimize the negative effects of increased CO2, I’m saying the effects of increased CO2 are not all bad and thus the good effects should be included in any discussion to give a more honest assessment of the effects of increased CO2.

Bad effects include:

- worse/more frequent land heat waves, which increases deaths from excess heat

- increased sea level due to melting land ice leading to increased coastal inundation

- increased energy usage for AC

- increased marine heatwaves/coral bleaching

- increased frequency/intensity of flooding events due to increased atmospheric moisture content that can be held by warmer air

- increased/stronger hurricanes due to warmer oceans

- increased flooding from hurricanes due to slower average movement speed due to slower average steering

 

Good effects include:

- increased food supply due to CO2 fertilizer effect

- less frequent/intense cold waves. There’s evidence that extreme cold has killed more people than extreme heat. Thus, more lives may be saved when netting out decreased cold related deaths vs increased heat related deaths:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/amp/

- decreased energy usage for heating. Current US natural gas storage is near record high levels for late March due largely to the warm winter.

 

 In summary, increased CO2 has many very detrimental effects. However, there are some beneficial effects that should also be acknowledged in an honest assessment even if we assume that CO2 increases are more harmful than beneficial. Also, is it possible that negative feedbacks due to increased vegetation eventually will halt GW and can climate models accurately account for this?
 

[chubbs]

Chesco didn't show us Figure 1 and 2, must have been an oversight.

[chubbs]

This recent study shows that global heat waves are becoming more frequent, lasting longer, covering larger areas, moving slower, and bringing higher temperatures.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl1598

Compounding the effects of high temperature,  global dew point and wet bulb temperatures are also rising.

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, GaWx said:

 This reminds me of an important point, the CO2 fertilization effect. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth due to increased photosynthesis. Also, warmer higher latitudes can lead to an increase in vegetation at higher latitudes due to a longer growing season. This increased plant growth has increased the net greenness of the earth over the last few decades (see image below). That includes much of the US Midwest, which has lead to a cool down there in summer:

“Carbon dioxide is not only a pollutant but a fertilizer — a key ingredient in photosynthesis that helps plants grow. Some farmers inject CO2 into their greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. But now we’re fertilizing plants on a global scale: In the last two centuries, NASA reports, humans have increased the CO2 content in the air by roughly 50 percent. All that extra CO2 is accelerating leaf growth, and satellites can see it.”

 The above writeup and the image below are from here:

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2024/2/7/24057308/earth-global-greening-climate-change-carbon

 

 So, this is a natural negative feedback to AGW. Between the cooling due to increased greenness blocking the sunlight as well as holding soil moisture better and an increase in the amount of CO2 being absorbed due to increased vegetation, there is an increase in uncertainty as to how much the globe will actually end up warming in total. Could it eventually cause an equilibrium and halt GW at some point? Is this negative feedback being properly modeled?

 Furthermore, the increase in crop sizes has been resulting in an increase in food supply. So, although I’m not trying to minimize the negative effects of increased CO2, I’m saying the effects of increased CO2 are not all bad and thus the good effects should be included in any discussion to give a more honest assessment of the effects of increased CO2.

Bad effects include:

- worse/more frequent land heat waves, which increases deaths from excess heat

- increased sea level due to melting land ice leading to increased coastal inundation

- increased energy usage for AC

- increased marine heatwaves/coral bleaching

- increased frequency/intensity of flooding events due to increased atmospheric moisture content that can be held by warmer air

- increased/stronger hurricanes due to warmer oceans

- increased flooding from hurricanes due to slower average movement speed due to slower average steering

 

Good effects include:

- increased food supply due to CO2 fertilizer effect

- less frequent/intense cold waves. There’s evidence that extreme cold has killed more people than extreme heat. Thus, more lives may be saved when netting out decreased cold related deaths vs increased heat related deaths:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/amp/

- decreased energy usage for heating. Current US natural gas storage is near record high levels for late March due largely to the warm winter.

 

 In summary, increased CO2 has many very detrimental effects. However, there are some beneficial effects that should also be acknowledged in an honest assessment even if we assume that CO2 increases are more harmful than beneficial. Also, is it possible that negative feedbacks due to increased vegetation eventually will halt GW and can climate models accurately account for this?
 

The article linked was more sanguine about CO2 effects than your write up. Not all of the greening is due to CO2 and increased greening is a mixed blessing. Your description of radiation effects isn't correct. Increased photosynthesis causes plants to absorb more sunlight, and reflect less, so greening generally causes warming. The effect is particularly large in the arctic where greening is mainly due to expansion of shrubs and trees northward. The greener surface absorbs much more sunlight than the snow or tundra surface it replaces. I believe these effects are included in models but am not familiar with the details.

Finally here's a short interview with an ag expert, who expects a negative impact from CO2 on agriculture in most areas.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food

[chubbs]

Related to the CO2 fertilization post above, the recent study below  accounted for the albedo effect of planting trees. In many places around the world, planting trees causes warming, as increases in absorbed sunlight offset the benefit from CO removal.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46577-1