Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

Can anyone explain this?

I don't dispute the finding... that is, that climate-driven warming threatens agricultural productivity in Central Europe. My question is with these depictions of historical agroclimatic zones. If you just looked at this reconstruction, you would think the period 1501-1525 had similar regional temperatures to 2001-2018, and 1926-1950 was similar to 1601-1625, one of the coldest times of the Little Ice Age, and, bizarrely, even colder in the western parts of the region of interest. My problem is this... these reconstructions make zero sense based on hundreds of years of climatology. I realize there are regional variations, but I think it's implausible that this part of the world would have experienced similar agroclimatic zones to the recent past during a time when global temperatures were more than 1C cooler than the present. If we look at recent years, which have been as much as 1.5C of warming from the late 19th century, these periods were probably 2C or more cooler based on most reliable reconstructions. 1926-1950 was also a period of relative warmth globally on a millennial or multi-millennial timeframe, with some stability or even modest cooling in the ensuing decades, only for another large step-up in temperature to occur in the latter parts of the 20th century. 

More caution should be had when combining proxy data and instrumental records. I feel like if 1926-1950 and 2001-2018 were calculated in the same manner as the earlier periods, there should be a lot more oranges and reds in the earlier period, and the most recent should be blood red. Something is off here. Like I said, I don't dispute the finding AT ALL. However, to me, the graphic is casting a misleading view and literally flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific understanding of the earth's climates - an understanding and knowledge that even predates the discovery of the greenhouse effect.

[chubbs]

14 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Can anyone explain this?

I don't dispute the finding... that is, that climate-driven warming threatens agricultural productivity in Central Europe. My question is with these depictions of historical agroclimatic zones. If you just looked at this reconstruction, you would think the period 1501-1525 had similar regional temperatures to 2001-2018, and 1926-1950 was similar to 1601-1625, one of the coldest times of the Little Ice Age, and, bizarrely, even colder in the western parts of the region of interest. My problem is this... these reconstructions make zero sense based on hundreds of years of climatology. I realize there are regional variations, but I think it's implausible that this part of the world would have experienced similar agroclimatic zones to the recent past during a time when global temperatures were more than 1C cooler than the present. If we look at recent years, which have been as much as 1.5C of warming from the late 19th century, these periods were probably 2C or more cooler based on most reliable reconstructions. 1926-1950 was also a period of relative warmth globally on a millennial or multi-millennial timeframe, with some stability or even modest cooling in the ensuing decades, only for another large step-up in temperature to occur in the latter parts of the 20th century. 

More caution should be had when combining proxy data and instrumental records. I feel like if 1926-1950 and 2001-2018 were calculated in the same manner as the earlier periods, there should be a lot more oranges and reds in the earlier period, and the most recent should be blood red. Something is off here. Like I said, I don't dispute the finding AT ALL. However, to me, the graphic is casting a misleading view and literally flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific understanding of the earth's climates - an understanding and knowledge that even predates the discovery of the greenhouse effect.

The current "scientific understanding" includes all the previous work plus new information. That's how science works. The biggest recent advances are ice sheet, ocean, and lake sediment cores and water isotope ratios which provide temperature in the core samples. All of these are accurate, can be dated, and paint a consistent picture. We are warmer now than anytime in the past 120,000 years. Note that the chart doesn't include the recent spike to 1.5+C higher than pre-industrial on a global basis, or roughly 2C warmer in the northern Hemisphere, off the chart warmth.

We have already left the holocene (last 10k), now in the eemian (120-130k ago), and in a couple of decades will reach the Pliocene.(1.8-5 million years ago). A different climate than the one we were born in.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

The current "scientific understanding" includes all the previous work plus new information. That's how science works. The biggest recent advances are ice sheet, ocean, and lake sediment cores and water isotope ratios which provide temperature in the core samples. All of these are accurate, can be dated, and paint a consistent picture. We are warmer now than anytime in the past 120,000 years. Note that the chart doesn't include the recent spike to 1.5+C higher than pre-industrial on a global basis, or roughly 2C warmer in the northern Hemisphere, off the chart warmth.

We have already left the holocene (last 10k), now in the eemian (120-130k ago), and in a couple of decades will reach the Pliocene.(1.8-5 million years ago). A different climate than the one we were born in.

also, we must realize that for 85% of earth's history there was no ice at either pole.

Perhaps we will see an explosion of new life.  We might return to what it was like during the Mesozoic.

[chubbs]

3 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

also, we must realize that for 85% of earth's history there was no ice at either pole.

Perhaps we will see an explosion of new life.  We might return to what it was like during the Mesozoic.

Yes, there has been an explosion of life after every mass extinction. It won't happen though until climate conditions stabilize, 10,000 to 100,000 years in the future perhaps; and, will depend on how humans shape the planet.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Yes, there has been an explosion of life after every mass extinction. It won't happen though until climate conditions stabilize, 10,000 to 100,000 years in the future perhaps; and, will depend on how humans shape the planet.

we shall see how humanity survives the current mass extinction too, I could see humanity going back to a pretechnology state by then.

 

[ChescoWx]

Oh no!!! The many climate alarmists on this forum will be pleased to see that just today the "famous" Doomsday Clock is symbolically clicking closer to midnight with what they call the "lack of positive progress on global challenges" including climate change!!! Regarding climate they say "the global attempts to reduce climate change remains poor, as governments aren't enacting the necessary policies to halt global warming"

[Typhoon Tip]

52 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

Oh no!!! The many climate alarmists on this forum will be pleased to see that just today the "famous" Doomsday Clock is symbolically clicking closer to midnight with what they call the "lack of positive progress on global challenges" including climate change!!! Regarding climate they say "the global attempts to reduce climate change remains poor, as governments aren't enacting the necessary policies to halt global warming"

Proooobably not with the 'climate alarmists on this forum'   

Most of those that I have read are not really alarmists (first of all...). If there are really alarmists among us ... they are too few to care.  Everyone else demonstrate enough intelligence that it is more likely they understand that the above d-day clock concept covers a spectrum of threats. Duh.  

It is less likely they would even mention it, as the content as it relates to CC and the risks therein, are quite remedial to the going understandings about climate change objective reality.   Climate is just one facet in the d-day clock's larger compendium of risks, all of which are man made ... etc.  That's the purpose of it. 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

Oh no!!! The many climate alarmists on this forum will be pleased to see that just today the "famous" Doomsday Clock is symbolically clicking closer to midnight with what they call the "lack of positive progress on global challenges" including climate change!!! Regarding climate they say "the global attempts to reduce climate change remains poor, as governments aren't enacting the necessary policies to halt global warming"

Numerous other factors were also cited. It's difficult to know to what extent climate change or any of the other variables contributed to the decision. Here's the complete press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – January 28, 2025 – The Doomsday Clock was set at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has ever been to midnight in its 78-year history. The 2025 Clock time signals that the world is on a course of unprecedented risk, and that continuing on the current path is a form of madness. The United States, China, and Russia have the prime responsibility to pull the world back from the brink. The world depends on immediate action.

The Doomsday Clock’s time is set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Science and Security Board (SASB) in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes nine Nobel Laureates. Factors included nuclear weapons threats, the climate crisis, biological threats, and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). The Clock’s time changed most recently in January 2023, when the Doomsday Clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight.

Daniel Holz, PhD, SASB Chair, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and professor at the University of Chicago said: “The purpose of the Doomsday Clock is to start a global conversation about the very real existential threats that keep the world’s top scientists awake at night. National leaders must commence discussions about these global risks before it’s too late. Reflecting on these life-and-death issues and starting a dialogue are the first steps to turning back the Clock and moving away from midnight.”

In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course. Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe. Our fervent hope is that leaders will recognize the world’s existential predicament and take bold action to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and the potential misuse of biological science and a variety of emerging technologies.

Juan Manuel Santos, Chair of The Elders, former President of Colombia, and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who participated in the 2025 Doomsday Clock announcement, said: “The Doomsday Clock is moving at a moment of profound global instability and geopolitical tension. As the hands of the clock get ever closer to midnight, we make an impassioned plea to all leaders: now is the time to act together! The existential threats we face can only be addressed through bold leadership and partnership on a global scale. Cada segundo cuenta. Every second counts.”

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[Typhoon Tip]

13 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

I briefly got into an article over at Phys.org that discussed recently how CO2 cycle over the Arctic has changed from sink to source.

here it is,

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-millennia-arctic-boreal-region-source.html

[Typhoon Tip]

In shocking finding ... scientist were staggered back when making the startling connection, one that's "never" been made, that the recent firestorm activity in southern California was interminably worsened by climate change...

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-climate-conditions-fed-california-wildfires.html

( that's sarcasm above )